alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 1 1

- 00 224

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§ APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

EX PARTE:

§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BARRY WION

§ ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAN

DUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On July 26, 2011, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying

his motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc. On July 28, 2011, this court notified Appellant,

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2 , that the information received in this appeal

does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. See Shadowbrook Apartments v.

Abu

- Ahmad , 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that order denying motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc is not appea lable). Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be

dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before August 29,

2011, to show the jurisdiction of this court.

On August 19, 2011, Appellant responded that the t rial court’s order is final and

appealable because it disposes of all issues and parties in the suit. He responded further that the

trial court’s docket sheet entry is sufficient to show that the order was signed. However, these

arguments and the authori ty Appellant cites do not address the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in

Shadowbrook Apartments and do not show that this case is an exception to that holding.

Consequently, Appellant has not shown this court’s jurisdiction of the appeal. Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Opinion delivered August 24 , 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
*

The Honorable Judith M. Barzilay, Judge of United States Court of International Trade,

sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0344n.06

Filed: May 3, 2005

No. 04-1224

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT DUCHARME and PATRICIA

DUCHARME,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

A & S RV CENTER, INC.; FLEETWOOD

MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.;

CUMMINS ENGINE CO., INC; OXFORD BANK;

and FREIGHTLINER CUSTOM CHASSIS

CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; BARZILAY, Judge of the United States

Court of International Trade*

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Patricia Ducharme appeal the district

court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants-Appellees on their claims for damages for

breach of express and implied warranties, and derivative federal and state consumer protection

claims, resulting from the Durcharmes’ purchase of an allegedly defective motor home.

The district court found that all the express warranties at issue had not been breached since

each defect presented to the defendants for repair within the warranty period was repaired in a
No. 04-1224

Ducharme v. A & S RV Center, et al.

- 2 -

reasonably timely fashion. Further, it found that no implied warranty inured to Patricia Ducharme

because either (a) she was not a purchaser of the motor home; or (b) she was a purchaser, but only

through Robert Ducharme’s signature on the only agreement wherein the vendor promised to deliver

the motor home, and was thus bound by the waiver conspicuously included in that agreement. See,

e.g., Cent. Discount Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 94 N.W.2d 805, 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 1959) (noting

that a “sale” only occurs when the body of an instrument indicates an intent to transfer goods from

a seller to a buyer, regardless of the instrument’s title); see also Wells v. 10-X Mfg. Co., 609 F.2d

248, 254 (6th Cir. 1979) (noting that transactions involving other services provided in conjunction

with a sale do not subject the providers of such services to duties under the U.C.C.). Accordingly,

the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the express and implied warranty

claims and on all the derivative consumer-protection-related claims resulting therefrom.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Latham

v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 395 F.3d 261, 264 (6th Cir. 2004). We have thoroughly reviewed

the record and the parties’ submissions, and can find no error in the district court’s conclusions of

law or findings of fact. The preparation of a detailed opinion would thus be unnecessarily

duplicative, and we therefore AFFIRM the district court’s opinion for the reasons stated therein.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-103248 on Form S-8 of Knology, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated February 14, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the consolidated financialstatement schedule of Knology, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 (which reports express unqualified opinions and include explanatory paragraphs relating to the Company’s change in its method of accounting forstock-based compensation to conform with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 and to the Company’s change in its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets to conform with Statement of Financial AccountingStandards No. 142, and the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 and 2000 financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have ceased operations), appearing in thisAnnual Report, as amended, on Form 10-K/A of Knology, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

November 20, 2003
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 3384

_____________________________
J OHNATHAN S AMPSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. J. Lee Marsh , Judge

. September 1, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , C.J.
, and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David Alan Henson , Megan Lynne Long, and Ashley N. Coyle, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee , for A ppellant; Johnathan Sampson, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### CROUCH v. CROUCH

No. 82 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 49.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 May 1972.
665.0746
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 212 (Friday, November 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 62247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5442]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Cross-disciplinary Training in 
the Language Science of Billingualism.
    Date: November 27, 2007.
    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6898, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc8b9d90908f9fbc919d9590d2929594d29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1067717c7c6373507d71797c3e7e79783e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 26, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5442 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
dmtk-ex102_7.htm



 

Exhibit 10.2



 

2020 Corporate Bonus Plan


	
 
	
1.
	
The DermTech, Inc. (“DermTech” or the “Company”) Corporate Bonus Plan (the “Bonus Plan”) should be simple to understand and incentivize eligible employees to achieve corporate goals which are in the best interests of stakeholders.





	
 
	
2.
	
An employee must have started employment with the Company prior to October 1, 2020 to be eligible for the Bonus Plan.





	
 
	
3.
	
Employees eligible for the Bonus Plan and hired in the current fiscal year will receive a pro-rated bonus based on their hire date.





	
 
	
4.
	
Employees eligible for other cash-based incentive compensation or bonus programs will not be eligible for the Bonus Plan.





	
 
	
5.
	
Bonus payments at the target percentages for each position grade will be paid based on actual wages earned during the year, not the employee’s annualized salary.





	
 
	
6.
	
The bonus will be paid typically after the fiscal year ends based on the goals that have been achieved.  Any bonus tied to a goal related to audited financial statements will be paid once the financial statement audit has been completed.  The DermTech Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) will have discretion on timing of payments.





	
 
	
7.
	
Eligible employees must be employed and in good standing on the date the bonus is paid to receive the bonus payment.





	
 
	
8.
	
The Compensation Committee administers the Bonus Plan and has authority to use their discretion to approve goals and bonus targets, adjust goals and bonus payments, and determine goal achievement, and modify, increase or decrease any bonus payments at any time and regardless of whether any of the performance goals are achieved.




Schedule I

[Schedule I, which lists the target 2020 bonus by position grade, has been omitted pursuant to Item 601(a)(5) of Regulation S-K.]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Sanjoseph Tan v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00511

- CR

Trial court case number: 1425902

Trial court: 179th District Co urt, Harris County

Date motion filed: August 12 , 2016

Party filing motion: Sanjoseph Tan

It is ordered that appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENI ED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Before: Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd

Date: August 25 , 2016
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 1 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 2 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 3 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 4 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 5 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 6 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 7 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 8 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 9 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 10 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 11 of 12

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-28      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 12 of 12
#### John B. Lewis, plaintiff in error, *vs.*J. R. Armstrong, administratrix, *et al.,*defendants in error.

(By two judges.) — 1. Where a judgment has been obtained since the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, it cannot be attacked by affidavit of illegality to the execution issued thereon, on the ground that the consideration of the contract on which the judgment is founded was a slave. Such defense should have been made to the action.

2. When judgment was obtained at common law against the makers and indorser of a note, and an appeal entered, which was afterwards dismissed, and subsequently the indorser is again sued on the note and permits a judgment to be taken against him by default, he cannot, by affidavit of illegality, attack such second judgment on the ground that a prior judgment unreversed existed against him for the same debt. He should have made this defense to the second action. 12th March, 1871.

Slave debts. Illegality. Before Judge Cole. Dooly Superior Court. October Term, 1871.

On the 20th of October, 1868, James M. Armstrong obtained a judgment against Lewis upon two promissory notes made in 1860. When the *fi. fa.*was issued and levied upon Lewis’ property he made oath that it was proceeding against him illegally, upon the following grounds: 1st. It is founded upon a contract, the consideration of which was slaves, and, therefore, the judgment was void under the Constitution of 1868, which forbade the Courts to give judgments on slave debts. Second. Because when this judgment was entered against him, plaintiff already had another valid and subsisting judgment against him for the same demand. The The other grounds are not material. Armstrong being dead, his representatives were made parties. And they demurred to said affidavit of illegality. The Court sustained the demurrer. That is assigned as error.

S. Rogers; Poe, Hall & Poe, for plaintiff in error.

If the Court have no jurisdiction, its judgment may be attacked whenever it is sought to enforce it: Revised Code, secs. 3776, *1323535, 3536; Cooly’s Con. Lim., 397, 399; 14 How. R., 334; 11th, 460; 9th, 350; 24th, 203; Cowp. R., 640. The first judgment was a bar to the second: 11 East. R., 118; Revised Code, section 2674. They asked to review Miller *vs.*Albritton, decided last term.

Joseph Armstrong, for defendants,

cited Revised Code, section 3621; 40 Ga. R., 506; 43d, 273; 41st, 274; 44th, 347; 7th, 204; 8th, 146; 22d, 570; 26th, 141; 11th, 137; 8th, 317.

Montgomery, Judge.

There are two grounds of illegality insisted on by plaintiff in error in this case — first, that the consideration of the debt on which the judgment is founded, was slaves. This defense comes too late; if good, it should have been pleaded to the action. Secondly, that a former judgment had been obtained against the defendant in *fi. fa.*for the same debt, and that this was the second judgment for the same amount. This stands in the same position with the first ground. See 40 Ga. R., 493, 500; *Miller vs. Albritton,*July Term, 1871.

Judgment affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 49 CFR Part 40

### CFR Correction

In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 99, revised as of October 1, 2006, the heading for § 40.209, on page 680 is corrected to read as follows:

§ 40.209

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 07-55511 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cr29-SPM

FRANCISCO PEGUERO JR.,

a/k/a “Frank Peguero, Jr.,”

Defendant.

________________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY PLEA

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, and subject to

the Court’s consideration of any Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(e)(2), the plea of guilty of the defendant, FRANCISCO PEGUERO, JR., to

Counts One and Two of the indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall

appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### STATE v. SUMMERLIN

No. 92 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 522.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 April 1978.
Exhibit 10.2


 





Marjax Property Management,
LLC


6840 Farralone Avenue


Canoga Park, CA 91303


 


 


Wellness Matrix Group, Inc.


17011 Beach Blvd., 9th Floor


Huntington Beach, CA 92647


 


 


February 5, 2019


 


 


Gentlemen:


 


This letter, when signed by you below,
shall constitute the credit agreement (“Agreement”) between us whereby this firm (”Marjax”) will advance
and loan to you (“WMGR”) from time to time, up to Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) on the terms set forth herein.


 


Upon your written request, delivered to
us at the above address, signed by an authorized officer of WMGR, (each request and loaned amount a “Draw”), we will
within seven business days of receipt of the request deliver the Draw by wire transfer to the account specified by you.


 


Each Draw shall bear interest at the rate
of three per cent over the prime rate publically announced by Chase Bank from time to time, from the date of the respective Draw,
compounded annually on the first day of January, 2020 and each January 1 thereafter, on the outstanding balance of each Draw and
interest thereon as of such date. The interest rate will change as of the effective date of each change in such prime rate.


 


The entire unpaid balance of Draws and
interest thereon shall be due and payable on January 31, 2024 and may be pre-paid in whole or in part, at any time, without penalty,
with interest calculated as of the date of receipt of payments.


 


The entire amount of Draws and interest
thereon shall become immediately due and payable if (1) WMGR files a petition under any bankruptcy, insolvency or similar law,
or (2) the making of an assignment for the benefit of creditors of WMGR.


 


If payment when due shall not be made,
Marjax shall be entitled to all costs of collection, including attorneys fees, which it may incur.


 


You confirm that this Agreement has been
approved by the Board of Directors of WMGR and the undersigned signatory has full authority to execute it on behalf of WMGR.


 


This Agreement shall be interpreted in
accordance with California law and any action to enforce it shall be taken in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles.


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


If this letter correctly sets forth our
Agreement, please sign a copy where indicated below and return it to us at the above address.


 


Very truly yours,


Marjax Property Management, LLC


 


 


By: /s/ James Camuso                                 


James Camuso, Manager


 


 


Agreed to and confirmed,


Wellness Matrix Group, Inc.


 


 


By:__________________________________


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	 	2
#### THIGPEN v. PIVER

No. 41 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 382.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.
|EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                                         OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer
of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (the Company), that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2004
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By:/s/
Alfred R. Kahn     
Alfred R. Kahn      Chairman of the Board and      Chief Executive
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: May 10, 2004
|------------------

| | By:/s/
Joseph P. Garrity     
Joseph P. Garrity      Executive Vice President and      Chief Financial
Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and will
be retained by 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------