alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
✎AO 85 (Rev. 8/98) Notice, Consent, and Order of Reference — Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND ORDER OF REFERENCE —

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

Plaintiff MAGISTRATE JUDGE

V.

Case Number:

Defendant

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, you are notified that a United States

magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,

and to order the entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however, permitted only if all

parties voluntarily consent.

You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court’s jurisdiction

from being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding

consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned.

An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for

this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court.

CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United

States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including the trial, order the entry of a final judgment, and

conduct all post-judgment proceedings.

Party Represented Signatures Date

ORDER OF REFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred to

United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Date United States District Judge

NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED 

ON THIS FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Case 7:07-cv-03544-KMK-LMS Document 3-3 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                  20,486
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                            216,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        25,904
<PP&E>                                               9,536,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,029,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       6,853,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                7,211,142
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            10,927,063
<OTHER-SE>                                           8,692,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         6,853,312
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             0
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       156,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     247,269
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (403,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (403,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (403,818)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.04)



</TABLE>
NATHANIEL STEWART,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW, TENA 

PATE,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4274

Opinion filed June 2, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Nathaniel Stewart, pro se, Petitioner.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, 

Tallahassee, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with
the annual report on Form 10-KSB as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2,
Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4 and Amendment  No. 5 on Form 10-KSB/A of SulphCo, Inc.
(as amended, the Report)of SulphCo, Inc. (the Company) for the
annual period ending December 31, 2003 as  filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, Rudolf W. Gunnerman, Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company, and Alan L. Austin, Jr., Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18  U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/
Rudolf W. Gunnerman
| | -----------------------

| | Rudolf
W. GunnermanChairman of the Board of Directorsand Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | January
25, 2005
| | ----------------

| | /s/
Alan L. Austin, Jr.
| | -----------------------

| | Alan
L. Austin, Jr.Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

| | January
25, 2005
| | ----------------

This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss. 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended
#### STATE v. WIKE

No. 125 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 475.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 June 1977.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          210356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    32256
<ALLOWANCES>                                     19782
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                222830
<PP&E>                                         3502635
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2411055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1314410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            89292
<BONDS>                                         388521
<COMMON>                                        780573
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       56024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1314410
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                100723
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   117103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8747
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (25127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (25127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (25127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WATKINS

No. 110 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 750.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 24 January 1978.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CRAIG K. STATEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv108/WS/EMT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________ /

O R D E R

Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Presently

before the court is Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed May 11,

2010 (Doc. 7). 

 Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and attached financial affidavit (the

latter having been signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury), the undersigned concludes that

Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient information for the court to grant the motion. In his prior

financial affidavit, Plaintiff did not report the receipt of any income in connection with his status as

a disabled veteran. In the current affidavit, while Plaintiff acknowledges receiving a monthly

payment from the Veterans Administration, it is unclear whether the amount reported is $102.00 or

$202.00. Additionally, although Plaintiff states that he makes a small monthly payment to the Thrift

Savings Program to repay a loan, he failed to report his Thrift Savings Program account (including

the balance) as an asset. Also, Plaintiff states that as of April 16, 2010, the date he signed the

application, he was pursuing unemployment benefits; if Plaintiff is now receiving unemployment

benefits he should so inform the court, including the amount. 

Additionally, based on Plaintiff’s reported income for his household (even without receipt

of unemployment benefits), he evidently has either $281.00 or $381.00 each month available in
Page 2 of 2

disposable income. It therefore appears to the court that Plaintiff should be able to pay the filing fee

in this case of $350.00. 

In order to proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee in full or file a

properly completed in forma pauperis application.

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) is DENIED without

prejudice.

2. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a financial

affidavit approved for use by non-prisoners in the Northern District of Florida.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the $350.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with

the requisite affidavit of financial status.

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of May 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv108/WS/EMT
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KRISTIN TREMMEL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-AK

I C SYSTEM INC,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (doc.

10), to which Defendant has not responded. Plaintiff moves to compel responses to

discovery she served on June 3, 2010, which included interrogatories, requests for

admission, and requests for production of documents. No responses to these discovery

requests have been made.

Defendant’s failure to file timely objections to Plaintiff’s request for production

of documents constitutes a waiver of the objections, and Defendant must provide all

requested documents which are within its possession, custody or control within the

meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540

(10 Cir. 1984), pet. for cert. dism. 469 U.S. 1199 (1985); Perry v. Golub, 74 F.R.D. 360,
Page 2 of 2

363 (N.D. Ala. 1976). Further, Defendant’s failure to respond timely to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories constitutes a waiver of any objections to those interrogatories, and it must

answer them fully. Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 33(b)(4). 

Finally, requests for admissions are deemed admitted if no written response is

made within thirty (30) days of service. Rule 36(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 10) is GRANTED and

Defendant shall respond without objection to the interrogatories and requests for

production of documents on or before September 10, 2010. All requests for admissions

served by Plaintiff on June 3, 2010, are hereby deemed admitted.

2. Plaintiff’s request for $750 in costs appears reasonable, and absent any

explanation or other response from Defendant, the Court finds that its failure to respond

to the discovery requests timely was not substantially justified and make an award of

such costs just. A check in this amount should be mailed to Plaintiff’s attorneys

forthwith.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-AK
exv10w51






Exhibit 10.51




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE SYSCO CORPORATION

AMENDED AND RESTATED

2005 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN




     Section 3.1 of the Sysco Corporation Amended and Restated 2005 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the
following:




Section 3.1 Eligibility. A Non-Employee Director who is otherwise eligible
to receive cash payment for services provided as a Director may elect to receive up to
50% of his or her annual retainer fee (exclusive of any fees or other amounts payable
for attendance at the meetings of the Board or for service on any committee thereof and
exclusive of any additional retainer fee paid to the Non-Executive Chairman of the
Board for his or her service in such capacity), in 10% increments, in the form of
Common Stock (a “Stock Election”), subject to the following terms of this Article 3.
The amount of the fee which a Non-Employee Director elects to receive in Common Stock
is referred to herein as the “Elected Amount.” The Elected Amount shall be deducted
ratably from the quarterly payments of the annual retainer fee payable to such
Non-Employer Director in that fiscal year in which the Elected Amount would have been
paid but for the Stock Election.



     Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the Plan are hereby amended so that all references therein to “Stock
Election” are capitalized.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed, effective as
of the 28th day of June, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SYSCO CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Michael C. Nichols
	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Michael C. Nichols
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Sr. Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
#### E. G. and E. S. Prothro, executors, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Albert Word *et al.,*defendants in error.

The certificate of the Clerk should identify the papers sent up. R.

Equity from Stewart.

John T. Clark, for plaintiffs in error.

Moses & Downing, for defendants.

To the bill of exceptions in this cause was a certificate that it was the true original, and that “the foregoing pages is a true and complete transcript of the record in the case of A. R. Word and wife *et al. vs.*E. J. Prothro and Emeline S. Prothro, executor and executrix of Nathaniel Prothro, deceased.”

That seemed to be the case specified in the bill of exceptions. There were no “ foregoing pages.” But tied up with the bill of exceptions were seventeen other papers, being a bill in equity, an amendment thereto, an answer and exceptions thereto, etc., each separate and distinct from the other. It was said that these were the “foregoing pages,” and that it would appear by an inspection of them. The Court would not inspect them. Upon motion of counsel for defendant in error the cause was dismissed, because the record had not been certified according to law. 24th February, 1872.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State,

v.

PHILLIP ANDREW FRIAS,

 

 Appellee.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00014-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20130D03266)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

June 5, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Robin Norris, the Appellee’s Attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before June 5, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Opinion issued June30, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00130-CV

———————————

IN RE JEFFREY KITTLE AND KITTLE PROPERTY GROUP, INC., 

Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Jeffrey Kittle and Kittle Property Group, Inc. have filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus requesting this Court to vacate an order requiring the deposition 

of Jeffrey Kittle.

1

1 The underlying case is Chance Willis and Christopher Okray v. The Vireo 

Apartments, LP, Kittle Property Group, Inc., Herman and Kittle Properties, Inc., 

and Jeffrey Kittle, cause number 2023-37572, pending in the 234th District Court 

of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Lauren Reeder presiding.
2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot. We withdraw the order granting emergency 

relief that issued February 21, 2024.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
olthoff_amendment.htm


Exhibit 10.27

 



 


AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated April 1, 2006, as amended on December 22, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Walco International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Damian Olthoff
(the “Executive”) is entered into as of the 3rd day of September, 2009 (“Effective Date”).





WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein;





NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.           Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meaning as prescribed in the Employment Agreement.





2.           Termination following Change of Control Occurring Prior to January 1, 2011.  In the event (i) of a Change of Control prior to January 1, 2011, and
(ii) within the two (2) years following such Change of Control, the Executive’s employment terminates pursuant to either Section 5.4 or 5.5 of the Agreement; then the Separation Pay Period or payment period specified in Section 5.5 (as applicable) shall be increased to include an additional six (6) months.





3.           Entire Agreement.  This Amendment constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties with respect to the second amendment of the Agreement;
supersedes all prior verbal and written understandings and agreements between the parties relating to its subject matters; and may not be modified except in a writing signed by both parties.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.





 


	
EXECUTIVE 

 
	
WALCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

 

	 	 
	
/s/ Damian Olthoff

 

Damian Olthoff  

 
	
By: /s/ James C. Robison

 

Name:  James C. Robison

Title:  President and C.E.O.
Case 1:07-cv-03552-LAP-DFE     Document 6      Filed 07/30/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03552-LAP-DFE     Document 6      Filed 07/30/2007     Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         171,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  808,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (75,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,238,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,597,846
<PP&E>                                       2,422,269
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,942,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,353,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,917,296
<BONDS>                                         79,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    990,564
<COMMON>                                        29,549
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,663,993)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,353,128
<SALES>                                      1,893,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,893,862
<CGS>                                        1,818,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,432,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             171,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (709,955)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (709,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (709,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        <PAGE>
</TABLE>