alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. OTIS HUNT.

(Filed 7 June, 1957.)

Criminal Law § 53j—

Where the State’s sole witness is an undercover agent who testifies that he purchased nontaxpaid whisky from defendant, an instruction that the jury should scrutinize his testimony in the light of his interest and bias, but that if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness was telling the truth, and if the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from such testimony that defendant was guilty, to return such verdict, *is held*without error.

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*November, 1956 Criminal Term, RobesoN Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon a three-count bill of indictment charging the defendant with unlawful possession, unlawful possession for the purpose of sale, and unlawful sale of (nontaxpaid intoxicating whiskey).

The only State’s witness, Donald Torrence, an undercover officer, testified: “On July 12 ... I entered the house and saw Otis Hunt for the first time; I asked Otis Hunt if he could get a jar, and he said, ‘Yes’; he left out the back door, was gone a few minutes, returned with a half-gallon jar of nontaxpaid whiskey which contained no stamps. . . . I paid Otis Hunt $3.00 for the half-gallon jar of nontaxpaid whiskey.” ... On cross-examination the witness testified: “As I recall, Otis Hunt lived on a dirt road.”

The defendant’s only witness testified that Otis Hunt lived on a paved road.

The only assignment of error relates to the following part of the judge’s charge:

“I instruct you in this case as to the testimony of Mr. Torrence, State’s witness, that it is your duty to scrutinize his testimony with caution and care, in the light of his interest and bias, if any you find; but if after you do that, you believe beyond a reasonable *455doubt that he is telling the truth, and you are satisfied from his testimony and beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, it would be your duty to so find, that is, return a verdict of guilty.”

In addition to the above, the court charged: “If the State has failed to satisfy you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or if you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it would then be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. . . .”

From an adverse verdict and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*F. D. Hackett and Robert Weinstein for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cuexam.

The testimony of witness Torrence was the only evidence relating to the charges in the bill of indictment. The instruction complained of here is similar, in principle, to the instruction approved by this Court in *S. v. Moore,*192 N.C. 209, 134 S.E. 456. This record discloses

No error.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 24, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00242

- CV

IN RE UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE WORD

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On April 21, 2 01 5, relator University of the Incarnate Word filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered relator’s petition, the response and reply of the parties, and has determined that relator is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5 2.8(c).

The Honorable David A. Canales is ORDERED to vacate the May 1, 2015 order granting plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge Canales has not done as directed within fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on June 24, 2015

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of June, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014

- CI

- 07249, styled Valerie Redus, Individually and Robert Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Cameron Redus v. University of the Incarnate Word and Christopher Carter , pending in the 150 th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10436

SANY America, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ INTELLECTUAL VENTURE S I LLC, INTELLECTUAL VENTURE S II LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v. T- MOBILE USA, INC., T

- MOBILE US, INC., UNI TED STATES CELLULAR CORP ORATION, SPRINTCOM, INC., SPRINT SPECTRUM LP, NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA , INC., VIRGIN MOBIL E USA, L.P., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________ 2017

- 2601, 2017

- 260 4, 2017

- 2608, 2017

- 2610, 2018

- 1027, 2018

- 1029, 2018

- 1033

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No s . 1:13

- cv - 01632

- LPS, 1:13

- cv 01633

- LPS, 1:13

- cv - 01634

- LPS, 1:13

- cv - 01635

- LPS, 1:13

- cv - 01636 -LP S, 1:13

- cv - 01637

- LPS, 1:15

- cv - 00800 -LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ JUDGMENT

______________________ M ARTIN J AY B LACK , Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Also represented byR OBERT W. A SHBROOK , J R
. ; J OSEPH M. A BRAHAM , Austin, TX; J USTIN B OYCE , N ISHA P ATEL , Mountain View, CA; R OBERT R HOAD , Princeton, NJ. B RIAN B UROKER , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC , argued for defend ants

- appellees T

Mobile USA, Inc., T

- Mobile US, Inc. Also represented by J OSH K REVITT , New York, NY; E RIC T SAI S YU , Irvine, CA; A LISON R. W ATKINS , Palo Alto, CA

. D AVID E VAN F INKELSON , McGuireWoods LLP, Ric hmond, VA, argued for defendants

- appe llees SprintCom, Inc., Sprint Spectrum LP, Nextel of California, Inc., Virgin Mobile USA, L.P , United States Cellular Corpor ation . Also represented by K RISTEN M ARIE C ALLEJA , M ATTHEW A LLEN F ITZGERALD
. S TEVEN J. H OROWITZ , Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendant

- appellee United States Cellular Corpor ation. Also represented by D OUGLAS L EWIS
.

______________________ T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is O RDERED and A DJUDGED : P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , O’M ALLEY , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ). AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.
E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 14, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.7

   

  AMENDMENT TO 

  RESTATED KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION

      2010 EQUITY PARTICIPATION PLAN

   

  Kimco Realty Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the “Company”),
      has previously adopted the Restated Kimco Realty Corporation 2010 Equity Participation Plan (as amended and/or restated from time to time, the “Plan”). This Amendment to the Plan (this “Amendment”) has been approved by a resolution of
      the Board of Directors of the Company on December 14, 2022 .

   

  1.            Amendment to Article 13. A new Section 13.16 of the
      Plan is hereby added to read as follows:

   

  13.16 Awards to Certain Eligible Individuals; REIT Status.

   

  (a)       The Company may provide through the establishment of
      a formal written policy (which shall be deemed a part of this Plan) or otherwise for the method by which Common Stock or other securities of the Company may be issued and by which such Common Stock or other securities and/or payment therefor may be
      exchanged or contributed among such entities, or may be returned upon any forfeiture of Common Stock or other securities by the Eligible Individual.

   

  (b)       The Plan shall be interpreted and construed in a
      manner consistent with the Company’s status as a real estate investment trust within the meaning of Sections 856 through 860 of the Code (“REIT”). With respect to any Award that has been granted under the Plan, such Award shall not vest, be
      exercisable or be settled:

   

   (1)           to the extent that the vesting, exercise or settlement of
      such Award could cause the Participant or any other person to be in violation of any provision of the Company’s charter; or

   

   (2)  if, in the discretion of the Administrator, the vesting, exercise
      or settlement of such award could impair the Company’s status as a REIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 13, 2013

jam 

# Order

Clerk November 13, 2013

1 47997 ( 3 )

ROBERT REEVES

,

Plaint iff,

v SC: 1 47997

A GC : 1628/13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

,

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 3 7.00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 3 8.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
#### EARL TOPPING v. HYDE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, consisting of GRATZ SPENCER, Chairman, WALTER LEE GIBBS and CRAWFORD CAHOON, Members, and TOMMIE GAYLORD, Secretary of *720the said Board and Superintendent of Public Instruction of Hyde County.

(Filed 17 September, 1958.)

Appeal and Error § 6—

Where, pending appeal, the act which plaintiff sought to restrain has been done, the appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order becomes academic, and the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Paul,*Resident Judge of the Second Judicial District, in chambers at Washington, North Carolina, on 24 March 1958. From Hyde.

Civil action by plaintiff, a resident freeholder and taxpayer of Hyde County, to restrain the Hyde County Board of Education, its members, and Tommie Gaylord, Secretary of the Hyde County Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction of the County, from entering into a contract for the erection of a consolidated High School building to be known as the Mattamuskeet High School, heard upon an order to appear 'and show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be issued.

After hearing the evidence Judge Paul denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and the plaintiff appeals.

*LeRoy Scott for plaintiff, appellant.*

*O. L. Williams for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

During the argument before us counsel for plaintiff and defendants admitted that pending the appeal the defendants have already entered into the contract, which the plaintiff seeks to enjoin. Since the contract has been made, a court cannot restrain the making of it. The question whether Judge Paul should have enjoined the making of the contract is now academic. Therefore, in accord with many decisions of this Court, the appeal will be dismissed. *Efird v. Comrs. of Forsyth,*217 N.C. 691, 9 S.E. 2d 466; *Austin v. Dare County,*240 N.C. 662, 83 S.E. 2d 702; *Medlin v. Curran,*243 N.C. 691, 91 S.E. 2d 713; *Walker v. Moss,*246 N.C. 196, 97 S.E. 2d 836; *Archer v. Cline,*246 N.C. 545, 98 S.E. 2d 889.

Appeal Dismissed.
exv10w13







Exhibit 10.13




Corporate Bonus Plan — 2010

Revised



Threshold



For any payout, the Company must meet or exceed both of the following targets:



Total revenue of $41,750,000





	 	•	 	includes both commercial & government




and,



Achieve EBITDA positive results for Q3 and Q4 of 2010



The Incentive Plan:





	 	•	 	Direct Reports of the CEO






	 	•	 	20% of salary at threshold
	 
	 	•	 	Additional 3% of salary for every 1% that revenue exceeds plan




Example: Company achieves $43,158,500 in total revenue, or 3.37365% above plan. The participant
with a base salary of $200,000 would earn 20.00% of salary or $40,000.00 for the Company having
achieved Threshold and an incremental 10.12096% of salary or $20,241.92 for a total bonus payout of
$60,241.92.

















 









 








Corporate Bonus Plan — 2010

Revised



Threshold





	 	 	For any payout, the Company must meet or exceed both of the following targets:






	 	 	Total revenue of $41,750,000






	 	•	 	includes both commercial & government




and,



Achieve EBITDA positive results for Q3 and Q4 of 2010



The Incentive Plan:





	 	•	 	Key Employees






	 	•	 	15% of salary at threshold
	 
	 	•	 	Additional 2% of salary for every 1% that revenue exceeds plan




Example: Company achieves $43,158,500 in total revenue, or 3.37% above plan. The participant
with a base salary of $100,000 would earn 15.00% of salary or $15,000 for the Company having
achieved Threshold and an incremental 6.74731% of salary or $6,747.31 for a total bonus payout of
$21,747.31.

























 









 










Corporate Bonus Plan — 2010

Revised



Threshold



For any payout, the Company must meet or exceed both of the following targets:



Total revenue of $41,750,000





	 	•	 	includes both commercial & government




and,



Achieve EBITDA positive results for Q3 and Q4 of 2010



The Incentive Plan:





	 	•	 	CEO






	 	•	 	30% of salary at threshold
	 
	 	•	 	Additional 4% of salary for every 1% that revenue exceeds plan




Example: Company achieves $43,158,500 in total revenue, or 3.37365% above plan. The participant
with a base salary of $300,000 would earn 30.00% of salary or $90,000.00 for the Company having
achieved Threshold and an incremental 13.4946% of salary or $40,483.80 for a total bonus payout of
$130,433.80.
---

Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Maury Austin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.




Date: May 6, 2010
By:
/s/ MAURY AUSTIN
Maury Austin
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
MIPS Technologies, Inc












A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3198

ADH Guardian USA LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP15-1322-000]

Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened in this proceeding commencing at 1:00 p.m. on February 17, 2016, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-referenced dockets.

Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).

FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to the undersigned Trial Staff contacts with the required accommodations.

                    For additional information, please contact Lorna Hadlock at 202-502-8737,                     *Lorna.Hadlock@ferc.gov.*

Dated: February 9, 2016.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-03025 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### *W.*T. REVIS v. BRUCE A. DUCKETT aud BLUE BIRD TAXI CO., INC.

(Filed 24 February, 1954.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sink, J.,*at November Term, 1953, of BuNCOMBE.

An automobile operated by Bruce A. Duckett struck and injured the plaintiff while he was walking across a street in Asheville. The plaintiff sued both Duckett and the Blue Bird Taxi Co., Inc., for damages in this action on the theory that concurrent negligence on their parts proximately caused the accident and his resultant injury. When the plaintiff had produced his evidence and rested his case, the trial judge sustained the separate motion of the Blue Bird Taxi Company for an involuntary non-suit, and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff thereupon submitted to a voluntary nonsuit as to Duckett, and appealed, assigning the involuntary nonsuiting of his ease against the Blue Bird Taxi Company as error.

*Don O. Toung for plaintiff, appellant.*

*John C. Oheesborough for the defendant Blue Bird Taxi Co., Inc., appellee.*

Per Curiam.

When the evidence is appraised at its true probative value, it is insufficient to show actionable negligence on the part of the Blue Bird Taxi Company. In consequence, the involuntary judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132883 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan SUSAN C. CHILDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132883 COA: 272806 WCAC: 04-000464 LEAR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 1, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2007

Clerk