alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
716 P.2d 1287

#### Gary HATHAWAY and Kathy Hathaway, husband and wife; and Michael Hathaway, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Raymond D. KRUMERY and Joann L. Krumery, husband and wife; and Boundary Aviation, Inc., an Idaho corporation, Defendants-respondents.

No. 15645.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 12, 1986.

Peter B. Wilson, Bonners Ferry, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Randall W. Day, Bonners Ferry, for defendants-respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal from a partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the defendants contracted to perform maintenance and repair on the plaintiffs aircraft; that the defendants’ performance of that maintenance and repair was grossly negligent; and that, as a result of the defendants’ conduct, the plaintiffs’ aircraft malfunctioned on two occasions, one of which resulted in an emergency landing, the other a crash landing. Plaintiffs’ complaint sought damages for. repairs to the aircraft, wrongful withholding of log books, punitive damages, and damages for severe emotional distress even though the plaintiffs suffered no physical injuries.

The district court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress, concluding that damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress could not be awarded in a case where there were no physical injuries. Plaintiffs appeal the partial summary judgment, asserting as their sole issue on appeal, “Is it necessary to show physical injury in establishing a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress?” We affirm.

This Court has refused to recognize a cause of action in tort arising from negligent infliction of emotional distress where there was no physical injury. *See Summers v. Western Idaho Potato Processing Co.,*94 Idaho 1, 479 P.2d 292 (1970). Nor are we persuaded that a characterization of this action as one arising out of contract would allow plaintiffs to recover. In the recent case of *Brown v. Fritz,*108 Idaho 357, 699 P.2d 1371 (1985), we held “when damages are sought for breach of a contractual relationship, there can be no recovery for emotional distress suffered by a plaintiff. ... We emphasize that our ruling today speaks only to damages asserted for emotional distress which arise from or have their roots in the breach of a contractual relationship.” 108 Idaho at 363, 699 P.2d at 1377. As in *Brown v. Fritz, supra,*the “roots” of the plaintiffs’ claim in this case result from the contractual relationship which arose when the defendant contracted to perform repair and maintenance on plaintiffs’ aircraft. Accordingly, our decision today is controlled by *Brown v.*
      *516
      *Fritz, supra,*and we affirm the decision of the district court which dismissed plaintiffs’ claim.

Affirmed. Costs to respondents.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50826 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN ANTONIO BLANCO-SALINAS, also known as Antonio Blanco-Salinas, also known as Antonio Salinas Blanco, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-445-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Antonio Blanco-Salinas raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
3.6





CERTIFICATE
OF AMENDMENT





OF





CERTIFICATE
OF INCORPORATION





OF





WORLDGATE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.





WorldGate Communications, Inc. (the
“Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby
certify:





2.           That
the Board of Directors of this Corporation adopted the following resolution to
amend its Certification of Incorporation:





RESOLVED,
that the first sentence (and only the first sentence) of paragraph FOURTH of the
Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read
as follows:





"FOURTH:
The amount of total authorized capital stock of the Corporation is 713,500,000
shares divided into 700,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
(the "Common Stock"), and 13,500,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $.01
per share (the "Preferred Stock")."





The
remaining sections of paragraph FOURTH, consisting of (A) COMMON STOCK, and (B)
PREFERRED STOCK, will survive the amendment in their current form.





3.           That
at the Corporation’s special meeting of stockholders held March 20, 2009, a vote
of the stockholders entitled to vote on the aforesaid amendment was taken and a
majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon voted in favor of the
aforesaid amendment.





4.           That
the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of Delaware.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be
signed by Randall J. Gort, the Secretary of the Corporation this 23rd day of
March, 2009








___________________Randall
      J. GortSecretary
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF AHL SERVICES, INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                               State of Incorporation                  Other Trade Names
----                               ----------------------                  -----------------
<S>                                <C>                                     <C>
Argenbright Holdings               Georgia                                 -- 
Limited

Argenbright, Inc.                  Georgia                                 RightSide Up
                                                                           Lloyd Creative Staffing
                                                                           Midwest Staffing
                                                                           Gage Marketing Support
                                                                            Services Group
                                                                           SES Staffing
                                                                           EMD
                                                                           TUJA
                                                                           Verfurth

AHL Alpha, Inc.                    Illinois                                --

Argenbright Security, Inc.         Georgia                                 Intersec
                                                                           USA Security
                                                                           UNICCO Security Services

AHL Beta, Inc.                     Illinois                                --
 
AHL Delta, Inc.                    Illinois                                --

Argenbright Motor Coach,           Georgia                                 --
Inc.

Argenbright Substance              Georgia                                 --
Testing, Inc.  

UPS Training Institute, Inc.       Georgia                                 --

The ADI Group Limited              United Kingdom                          --

ADI U.K. Limited                   United Kingdom                          --

Aviation Defence                   United Kingdom                          --
International Germany
Limited

ADI Alpha Holding, GmbH            Germany                                 --

Aviation Defense                   United Kingdom                          --
International France Limited

ADI Overseas Ltd.                  United Kingdom                          --

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.51    Date:
  
  December 7, 2007To:
  
  Mark GreenFrom:
  
  Hong LuSubject:
  
  2007-08 Turnaround
  Bonus and Stock Award  I want to thank you for your
contributions to UTStarcom and acknowledge you as an integral member of the senior
management team. These past months have been challenging and have required a
tremendous amount of time and effort from all of us. Achieving success in
the strategic recovery plan is paramount for the success of UTStarcom. Your
leadership will be integral in achieving this turnaround.  In recognition of
your ongoing commitment to UTStarcom you are eligible to receive a bonus paid
out in two installments, subject to achieving the milestones outlined below and
sustaining the performance requirements of your position.   The bonus
is designed to reward performance and support achievement of the companys
turnaround goals. Your on target bonus
is 65% of your base salary to be paid out as follows:  1.50%
is scheduled for payment on March 15, 2008, upon completion of your Q4 07 goals
as outlined in the attached worksheet.  2.The
remaining 50% payment will be paid in early
Q4, subject to the following company performance hurdles and multipliers, and
successful completion of your Q1-Q3 08 goals as outlined in the attached
worksheet  Operating Income
  Achievement (Q1-Q2 08
  Budget)
  
  Q4 Bonus Multiplier*<75%
  
  0%75%
  
  75%100%
  
  100%125%
  
  125%>125%
  
  125%  
 * Prorated linearly between 75% and 125%  3.Your
actual bonus payment will be determined based upon the companys assessment of
your performance against these goals and the operating income metrics above (example
follows).You must be employed by the company on the projected payment dates to
be eligible for payment. In the event that changes occur as a result of changes
in UTStarcom business conditions, modifications to these terms may be required.


Example a.1st payment: If you meet 75% of your Q4 goals,
your expected bonus will be calculated as follows: Bonus = Base Salary x 65% x
75%  b.2nd payment: If you meet 80% of your Q1-Q3 goals,
and the company beats its budgeted operating income by 20%, your 2nd bonus payout would be calculated as follows: Bonus
= Base Salary x 65% x 80% x 120%  This bonus replaces
your 2007 performance bonus which would have been paid out in Q1 2008. A 2008
year-end performance bonus review will take place as usual in Q1 2009 based on
the full 2008 year performance.  Stock
Award  Additionally, I am
pleased to let you know that you have been issued 91,428 Restricted Stock
Units. These RSUs will vest 25% on February 29, 2008 and 25% annually
thereafter.  You also have the
opportunity to earn up to 182,858 RSUs. The actual number of RSUs that you will
receive will be based on performance against your 2007 MBOs, set at the
beginning of this year. These shares have a 2 year vesting schedule, vesting 50%
on February 29, 2008 and 50% on February 27, 2009.  I would like to
remind you that we expect you to treat your compensation changes in the
strictest confidence. We value your contributions to UTStarcom and thank you
for your continuing efforts to re-build our leadership position.  Attachments
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James M. Mitchell, certify that:



1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 of GulfMark Offshore, Inc.; and



2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: May 1, 2017

|By: | /s/ James M. Mitchell                                                 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | James M. Mitchell
Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1

                               KINETEK, INC.
          COMPUTATIONS OF THE RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                           (dollars in thousands)


                                              Year Ended December 31,
                                        ----------------------------------
                                          2000          1999         1998
                                          ----          ----         ----

Fixed Charges
     Interest expense                   $31,324       $31,291      $31,203
     Rental expense included in
       fixed charges                      1,051         1,183        1,246
                                        -------       -------        -----
           Total fixed charges           32,375        32,474       32,449


Earnings
     Pre-tax income                       3,367        17,316       10,026
     Plus:  fixed charges                32,375        32,474       32,449
                                         ------       -------      -------
           Total Earnings               $35,741       $49,790      $42,475


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        1.1           1.5          1.3
                                          ===           ===          ===
Exhibit 32

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

      The undersigned, Kevin B. Kurtzman, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Concero Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:

      1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002 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 aforementioned Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


/s/ Kevin B. Kurtzman
-----------------------------------------
Kevin B. Kurtzman
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 4, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Concero Inc. and will be retained by Concero Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel January 08, 2015

County: Harris (C riminal )

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Ple ase acknowle dge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return

the original to this court.

14

- 11

- 00912

- CR

14

- 11

- 00913

- CR Brandon Caines v. The State of Texas 1574700,

1274701

State ’ s Exhibit 75 , a DVD

Received by: __________________________________

______

Received on: ________________________________________
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 23247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10375]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

1. Pending Decisional Matters

    (a) Testing and Labeling to Product Certification--Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and Testing Component Parts--Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR); (b) CPSA 15(j) Rule for Drawstrings--Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR); and (c) CPSA 15(j) Rule for Hairdryers--
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

2. Infant Bath Seats--Final Rule--and Laboratory Accreditation

    A live Web cast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/index.html.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: April 27, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10375 Filed 4-29-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Exhibit
99.2




CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Brand
Neue Corp. (the “Company”) for the six months ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adi Muljo,
Chief Executive Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15
(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.
 
 
 Date:
November 12, 2009
 
 
 ADI
MULJO
 Adi
Muljo
 Chief
Executive Officer
 and
Director
  33
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1040]



[[Page 3469]]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds For Section 8 of the Clayton 
Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds 
for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 
8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one 
person from serving as a director or officer of two competing 
corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are 
covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided 
profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no 
corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation 
are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade 
Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in 
gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect 
immediately, are $25,841,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $2,584,100 for 
Section 8(a)(2)(A).

DATES: Effective Date: January 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Mongoven, Bureau of 
Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination, (202) 326-2879.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. Sec.  19(a)(5)).
    By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1040 Filed 1-20-10: 10:52 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of the 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/9/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANNY DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-3320

v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3385)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

ELIZABETH COLLINS, Assistant U.S.

Attorney; and JANET RENO, United

States Attorney General,

(D. Kansas)

Respondents - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on

appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. In order to succeed on his motion, an
- 2 -

appellant must show both a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the

issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.

438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962).

As the district court pointed out in its order, the appellant’s conviction was

affirmed on direct appeal by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and his subsequent

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied. For the reasons stated in the

district court’s order dated September 29, 1995, the appellant makes no reasoned

argument which would permit him to relitigate issues already raised. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. 

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
- 440 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

REVEIZ v. EL-KASABY

Cite as 305 Neb. 440

Elena Reveiz, appellant, v. 

Bassel El-Kasaby, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 3, 2020. No. S-19-278.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J 

Russell Derr, Judge. Affirmed.

Denise E. Frost, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, and, on brief, Stacy L. Morris and 

Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The February 19, 2019, order of the Douglas County District 

Court is affirmed by an equally divided court.

Affirmed.

Papik, J., not participating.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

04/23/2020 09:08 AM CDT
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                           MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Three Months Ended             Nine Months Ended
                                                         September 30,                 September 30,
                                                      2001           2000           2001           2000
                                                   ----------     ----------     -----------    ----------
<S>                                                <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Earnings per Share Information:
-------------------------------------------------
Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding during the year ..................   3,965,326      3,939,314      3,963,377      4,090,055

Weighted average number of shares
   outstanding during the year
   including all dilutive potential shares ......   4,009,252      3,940,773      3,996,971      4,095,766

Net earnings ....................................  $1,086,860     $  926,134     $3,058,320     $3,010,554

Earnings per share - basic ......................  $     0.27     $     0.24     $     0.77     $     0.74

Earnings per share - diluted ....................  $     0.27     $     0.24     $     0.77     $     0.74
</TABLE>