alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BARNHARDT MANUFACTURING COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2010-1398 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Western District of North Carolina in No. 08-CV0617, Judge Frank D. Whitney. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

W. THAD ADAMS, III, Adams Intellectual Property Law, 

of Charlotte, North Carolina, argued for plaintiffappellant. 

JEFFREY A. MCINTYRE, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek 

S.C., of Madison, Wisconsin, argued for defendantappellee. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and PROST, 

Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 8, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
#### Barry SOLOMON, Appellant, v. PARKSIDE MEDICAL SERVICES CORP., Appellee.

No. 01-93-00218-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Aug. 11, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1994.

Bennett G. Fisher, Houston, for appellant.

Molly Steele and Jane Politz Brandt, Dallas, for appellee.

Before MIRABAL, WILSON and HEDGES, JJ.

OPINION

MIRABAL, Justice.

The trial court overruled appellant Barry Solomon’s motion to reinstate this case on the docket after the case had been dismissed for want of prosecution. In a single point of error, appellant complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to reinstate without an oral hearing. We affirm.

Appellant filed suit on August 9, 1990, alleging that appellee Parkside Medical Services Corp. had released confidential and privileged information to a third party without appellant’s written consent.

On September 1,1992, appellant’s attorney received a notice from the trial court stating that appellant’s case would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant filed a sworn motion to retain and a hearing was held on September 28, 1992, after which appellant’s suit was dismissed.

On October 7,1992, appellant timely filed a sworn motion to reinstate, and requested that the motion be set on the trial court’s submission docket for October 26, 1992. Appellant did not request an oral hearing. Ap-pellee filed a response.1 On January 19, 1993, the trial court overruled appellant’s motion to reinstate without conducting an oral hearing. The trial court’s order specifically states, “[t]his matter was set on the Court’s submission docket for October 26, 1992.”

When a movant sets a motion to reinstate on the trial court’s submission *493docket, effectively requesting the trial court to rule without conducting an oral hearing, the movant is estopped from complaining on appeal that the trial court erred in ruling on the motion to reinstate without conducting an oral hearing pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(3) (Vernon Supp.1994). *Kelly v. Cunningham,*848 S.W.2d 370, 371 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). A party may not lead a trial court into error and then complain about it on appeal. *Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.,*729 S.W.2d 768, 835 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ refd n.r.e.), *cert. dismissed,*485 U.S. 994, 108 S.Ct. 1305, 99 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). The fact that appellee’s response contained general language in the conclusion, praying for an oral hearing and denial of the motion, is immaterial when, as here, appellant filed nothing with the trial court indicating he had changed his mind and now wanted an oral hearing.

We overrule appellant’s sole point of error.

We affirm the judgment.

1

. We note that the last sentence in the "conclusion” paragraph of appellee’s response reads: "Accordingly, Parkside respectfully requests that this matter be set for oral hearing and that plaintiff’s motion to reinstate be denied.” There is no other request for oral hearing in the transcript. The blanks have not been filled in on the accompanying "Fiat” to show the date and time of any oral hearing, indicating appellee did not set the matter for oral hearing.
#### Abigail C. SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Michael W. FLYNN, Defendant/Respondent, and Cass Bank Trust Company, Defendant, In re David L. Campbell, Appellant.

No. 70422.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Dec. 10, 1996.

*174David L. Campbell, St. Louis, for appellant.

John A. Kilo, Edward C. Cody, St. Louis, for respondent.

CRAHAN, Presiding Judge.

Attorney David L. Campbell, counsel for plaintiffs in the underlying tort action, separately appeals an order denying reconsideration of an award of sanctions against him for failure to comply with Rules 55.05 and 55.19. We dismiss the appeal.

On October 31, 1995, Attorney Campbell was sanctioned after a hearing on defendant Flynn’s motion alleging Campbell had included a prayer for specific and substantial dollar amounts in the petition in violation of Rules 55.05 and 55.191 for the purpose of sensationalizing the charges and damaging the professional reputation of defendant Flynn. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the offending portions of the petition stricken and awarded sanctions against Campbell and in favor of defendant Flynn in the amount of $1,275.00. On November 2, 1995, Campbell filed a pleading captioned “MOTION OF COUNSEL TO RECONSIDER SANCTION ORDER.” On March 6, 1996, the trial judge filed a second order denying the motion to reconsider. This second order is the only ruling specified by Campbell as the subject of this appeal.

We find that Campbell has failed to preserve any issue for our review. As this court has repeatedly observed, a “motion for reconsideration [has] no legal effect as no Missouri rule provides for such a motion.” *Koerber v. Alendo Bldg. Co.,*846 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo.App.1992) (quoting *Christman v. Richardson,*818 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Mo.App.1991)). Under certain circumstances, an appellate court will, in the interest of facilitating substantive review of an appeal, treat a motion for reconsideration as a motion for new trial if timely filed. *Koerber,*846 S.W.2d at 730. In this case, however, that procedure is of no assistance to Campbell because the trial court did not rule on the motion within ninety days. A motion for new trial not ruled on within ninety days after the motion is filed is deemed to be denied for all purposes. Rule 78.06. Therefore, the order denying Campbell’s motion for reconsideration, which is the only order specified as the subject of this appeal, is a nullity. This leaves nothing before us for review. Accordingly! we dismiss the appeal.

GRIMM and HOFF, JJ., concur.

1

. Rule 55.05 provides in pertinent part:

> ... in actions for damages based upon an alleged tort, no dollar amount shall be included in the demand- except to determine the proper jurisdictional authority, but the prayer shall be for such damages as are fair and reasonable.

Rule 55.19 provides in pertinent part:

> In actions for [exemplaty or punitive] damages based upon an alleged tort, no dollar amount or figure shall be included in the demand, but the prayer shall be for such damages as are fair and reasonable.
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.

 May 27, 2014

s0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148148

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148148

COA: 313909

Oakland CC: 2009-227690-FH

DON EMANUEL HAIRSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
CERTIFICATION 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 of Planning Force, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Julie Morin, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Julie Morin

Julie Morin

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



October 25, 2005
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Steven P. BUEHLER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 57688.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 17, 1990.

James J. Robinson, Chesterfield, for defendant-appellant.

Robert E. Parks, Asst. Pros. Atty., Union, for plaintiff-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Steven Buehler, appeals his bench trial conviction on the charge of failure to keep right pursuant to RSMo section 304.015.2 (1986). We affirm. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find that the findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. No precedential value would be served by a full opinion. Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been supplied explaining our reasons for so holding. We also deny respondent’s motion to dismiss.
exv10wh



 





EXHIBIT 10.H




AMENDMENT TO THE

EXECUTIVE AWARD PLAN OF SONAT INC.




     WHEREAS, El Paso Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc.,
amended and restated effective as of December 1, 1995, as amended (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Plan, the Board of Directors or the “Committee” (as
defined in the Plan) may from time to time make such amendments to the Plan or any grant as either
of them may deem proper and in the best interests of the Company;



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to clarify provisions of the Plan to reflect the intent of the
Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee with respect to adjustments in the number of
authorized shares under the Plan.



     NOW THEREFORE, the following amendment shall be made to the Plan:



     Section 4.2 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



     “4.2 Adjustments for Changes in Capitalization




     In the event of a recapitalization, stock split, stock dividend, exchange of shares,
merger, reorganization, change in corporate structure or shares of the Company or similar
event, the Board of Directors or the Committee shall make such adjustments, if any, as it
determines are appropriate and equitable (i) in the number and kind of shares authorized by
the Plan (including any limitations on individual awards), (ii) in the number, price or
kind of shares covered by awards and (iii) in any outstanding awards under the Plan. Any
such adjustment shall be final, binding and conclusive on all persons claiming any right or
interest under the Plan.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, effective as of October 26, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EL PASO CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 	 	Its Senior Vice President, Human Resources	 	 
	 	 	and Administration	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ David L. Siddall
 


	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Corporate Secretary
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-06-29T16:29:56Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-06-29T16:30:01Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-06-29T16:30:01Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="98849">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="2">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-06-29T16:29:56Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>454 
</p>
<p>OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAE 
AUSTIN </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>455 </p>
<p></p>
<div class="ocr">Honorable Geo. i. Sheppard = page 2

peta from ths appropriation fer that year, and that per-
on of the hay contractod for, and tc be delivered aml

eonsuned during the fiscal year ending Anguat 3%, 1041,
should be paid out of tha appropriation for that year.

Thers is no inhibition against a purchase such
as this being uade upon a contract for delivery and usa
af the supplies during the succeeding fiscal year, and
no publie policy is contravened by such a practice. Ine«~
foot, such a practice may be a commendable ono accomiing
to the cilreumstances.

This conclusion ie supported by our Opinions
Nos. 60-1008 and o-22a9, cuples of which accompany thia
reply.

Very truly youre

Chan

O6-uR

Buclosures
APPRPCVEDSEP 9, 19406

ae eee

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THxeAb

455

APPROVED

OFINION
COMMITTER

BY.
CNAIRUAN
</div>

</div>
</body></html>
Order entered February 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01103-CV

NATIONSBUILDERS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Appellant

V.

HOUSTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, LTD., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-06111

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s motion for expedited consideration of this accelerated 

appeal. The motion is DENIED.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Case 2:17-mj-07546-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07546-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07546-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07546-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer 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 of pSivida Limited (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Soja, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:June 18, 2008



|                    |  |                                                    
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Soja
|Name:               |  | Michael J. Soja                                    
|Title:              |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22-0578

______________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS M. GREGORY,

Defendant and Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

______________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Tenth Judicial District Court,

Fergus County, Montana Cause No. DC-14-2021-0000013

Honorable Heather Perry

______________________________________________________________________________

UPON Appellant’s Unopposed Motion, and good cause appearing therein;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Reply Brief is granted. Appellant shall have up to, and including, Friday, March 24, 2023, 

to file reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2023

03/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0578
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UCFH I FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH I Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Tracey L. Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 7, 2008



By:

/s/ Tracey L. StockwellTracey L. StockwellTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### John D. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46455.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 2, 1993.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Runzi, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and SHANGLER and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing.

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7943

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH PIERRE FORD, a/k/a K-9,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-429-A)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Pierre Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Chestnut, Jerry R.

DeMaio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Pierre Ford appeals from the district court’s order

denying his request for an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to

permit Ford and his co-defendant to serve their sentences at the

same facility. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Ford, No. CR-91-429-A (E.D.

Va. Nov. 27, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 386 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 386

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 18, 2009.
Whereas the University of Georgia (UGA) Gymnastics program has won its 10th 
        National Collegiate Women's Gymnastics Championship;
Whereas the University of Georgia Gymnastics program has won 16 SEC 
        Championships;
Whereas the University of Georgia Gymnastic program has produced 8 Honda Award 
        winners;
Whereas the 2009 national title is the program's fifth consecutive national 
        championship;
Whereas the Gym Dogs are now the most successful gymnastics program in the 
        country;
Whereas the University of Georgia's gymnastics team, the Gym Dogs, has made 26 
        consecutive appearances in the NCAA Gymnastics Championships;
Whereas the 2009 Gym Dogs team's overall record was an amazing 32-1;
Whereas the 2009 Gym Dogs also achieved the school's highest team GPA, 3.36;
Whereas the gymnastics team's coach, Suzanne Yoculan, is retiring as the most 
        successful collegiate gymnastics coach in NCAA history; and
Whereas Coach Suzanne Yoculan has, in 19 of her 26 years as head coach at the 
        University of Georgia, taken her squad to an SEC title, an NCAA title, 
        or both: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the University of Georgia Gymnastics Team for winning 
        the 2009 NCAA National Championship;
            (2) recognizes that the Gym Dogs have won more national 
        championships than any other program in the Nation; and
            (3) congratulates Suzanne Yoculan for a spectacular career as the 
        University of Georgia's gymnastics coach.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```