alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 8, 2021 **LISA M .**  **AAZAD v. JOHNEY B .**  **AAZAD Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County**  **No. 149026 Gregory S. McMillan, Judge** 

**___________________________________ No. E2020**  **- 01020**  **- COA** **- R3**  **- CV** 

**___________________________________** The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Lisa M. Aazad, stated that appellant was appealing the judgment entered on July 30, 2020. As the July 30, 2020 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this C ourt lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

**Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right ;**  **Appeal Dism issed**  JOHN W. M C C LARTY , J.; D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , C.J.; AND K RISTI M. D AVIS , J. Lisa M. Aazad, Maryville , Tennessee, pro se a ppellant. Johney B. Aazad , Knoxville , Tennessee, pro se appellee.
**MEMORANDUM OPINION 1**  Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court directed the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of subje ct matter jurisdiction after it became clear that there was no final judgment from which an appeal as of right would lie. “A final judgment is one that resolves

1 Rule 10 of the Rules o f the Court of Appeals provides: This Court, with the concurrence o f a ll judges part icipat ing in the case, may affirm, reverse or mo dify the act io ns of the trial c ourt by memorandum opinio n when a formal

opinio n would have no precedential val ue. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion i t shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be ci ted or relied on fo r any reason in any unrelated case ,- 2

-

all the issues in the case, ‘leaving nothing else for the trial court to do.’” In re Estate of Henderson , 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel. McAllister v. Goode , 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal as of right if there is no final judgment. S ee Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones , 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990) (“Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments only.”). The appellant failed to respond to our show cause order. Specifically, the notice of appeal filed on August 4, 2020 , states that the appellant, Lisa M. Aazad , is appealing the judgment entered on July 30 , 2020
. The July 30 , 2020 order, however, does not appear to be a final appealable judgment as it reserve d for trial a “show cause.” “Except where otherwise provided, this Court only has subject matter jurisdiction over final orders.” Foster

-Henderson v. Memphis Health Center, Inc ., 479 S.W.3d 214, 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). As the July 30 , 2020 order does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Lisa M. Aazad , for which execution may issue. **PER CURIAM**
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31089-31090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15787]



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

[[Page 31090]]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, June 27, 1996, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:

Compliance Status Report

    The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various 
compliance matters.

    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye, E. Dunn, Office of 
the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-
0800.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15787 Filed 6-17-96; 2:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Exhibit A

(Filed Under Seal)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1267-1 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14792]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 17, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Enterprise Computer 
Telephony Forum [ECTF] filed written notification simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notification was filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Amtelco, McFarland, WI; Sun MicroSystems, Mountain View, 
CA; and Trident Corporation, Fairfax, VA have become Principal Members. 
Analogic Corporation, Peabody, MA has changed from a Principal Member 
to an Auditing Member. The following parties have become Auditing 
Members: Applied Language Technologies, Cambridge, MA; Ascom Telecom, 
Ltd., Cardiff, UNITED KINGDOM; Bosch Telecom GMBH, Frankfort, GERMANY; 
Cognitronics Corporation, Danbury, CT; Industry Technology Research 
Institute, Hsin-chu, TAIWAN; Itec Telecom, Danbury, CT; Oki Electronic 
Industry Co., Ltd., Warabi-shi, JAPAN; Pagesmart, Dallas, TX; and 
Silicon Automation Systems, Ltd., Bangalore, INDIA. Samsung Electronics 
and Teloquent Communications Corporation are no longer Auditing 
Members.
    No other changes have been made in the membership, nature or 
objectives of ECTF. Membership remains open, and ECTF intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 20, 1996, ECTF filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
May 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 22074).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14792 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### Lamont GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56190.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

April 24, 1990.

Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant, Lamont Griffin, pleaded guilty in March of 1983 to second degree murder, assault, and robbery. Since appellant’s sentence was pronounced prior to January 1, 1988, the time requirements contained in Rule 24.035(/) mandate that his motion must be filed on or before June 30, 1988. On July 1, 1988 movant’s pro se Rule 24.-035 motion was received by the clerk. *902Movant claims that he delivered his motion to prison officials on June 28, 1988. On October 25, the court dismissed his motion as untimely filed. We affirm.

Appellate review of the dismissal of Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); *Richardson v. State,*719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986). The time requirements contained in Rule 24.035 are mandatory. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989).

In his first point, appellant contends that the court should have used its inherent power to accept this motion even though it was not timely filed. Appellant’s point has no merit since the time requirements for a 24.035 motion are mandatory. *Id.*Point denied.

Appellant’s second point seems to argue that the mandatory time requirements are unconstitutional. This issue has already been considered and rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court. *Id.*Point denied.

Since the movant’s motion is not considered filed at the time of mailing but rather when the motion is received in the clerk’s office, the motion court properly dismissed appellant’s motion as untimely filed. *Morant v. State,*783 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Mo.App.1989).

The judgment is affirmed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
 þ
    
    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For the
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
 
 Commission File No. 000-23817
 NORTHWEST BANCORP, INC.
  United States
    
    23-2900888(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)100 Liberty Street, Warren, Pennsylvania
    
    16365(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    Zip Code
 (814) 726-2140  (Registrants telephone number)
 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Stock, $0.10 Par Value
    
    NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC
 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 o
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
    
    Smaller reporting company o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 o þ
   DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
 (1)
    
    Proxy Statement for the 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Registrant (Part III).




---



##### 



Explanatory Note




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  NORTHWEST BANCORP, INC.Date: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William J. WagnerWilliam J. Wagner, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William J. WagnerWilliam J. Wagner, Chairman, President, andChief Executive Officer and DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ William W. Harvey, Jr.William W. Harvey, Jr., Executive Vice President, Finance,Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Gerald J. RitzertGerald J. Ritzert, Senior Vice President,Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)Date: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ John M. BauerJohn M. Bauer, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Richard L. CarrRichard L. Carr, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Thomas K. CrealThomas K. Creal, III, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Robert G. FerrierRobert G. Ferrier, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ A. Paul KingA. Paul King, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Joseph F. LongJoseph F. Long, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Richard E. McDowellRichard E. McDowell, DirectorDate: April 16, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Philip M. TredwayPhilip M. Tredway, Director 103
Order entered March 7 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 01278
- CV ANTHONY EDES, Appellant

V. JESUS ARRIAGA, FREDE RICO ARRIAGA, MARIA ARRIAGA AND GOVERNME NT

EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee s On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 05169



### O RDER
T he reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated December 28, 2017, we
notified Sherett a L. Martin, O fficial Court Reporter for the 162nd Judicial District Court, that the reporter’s record was overdue and directed her to file the reporter’s record within thirty days. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed and we have not receive d any correspondence regarding the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Sheretta L. Martin to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; (3) writ ten verification appellant has not requested the reporter’s record; or (4) written verification appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for record. We notifyappellant that if we receive verification the reporter’s record has not been requ ested, or that

appellant has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c).
We DIRECT the Cle rk to send copies of this order to: Honorab le Maricela Moore Presiding Judge 162nd Judicial District Court
Sheretta L. Martin Official Court Reporter 162nd Judicial District Court All parties

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Mary MOONEY and Joseph Mooney, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Charles M. MUELLER, Jr., and Barry S. Ginsburg, Defendant Ad Litem for George Gramwich, Deceased, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 66944.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

June 6, 1995.

Stephen M. Glassman, Clayton, for appellants.

Barbara W. Wallace, David A. Feltz, Holt-kamp, Kiese, Beckemeier & Childress, P.C., St. Louis, for respondents.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing their cause of action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Mary Mooney fell at her workplace and alleged that defendant co-employees were negligent in making repair to a portion of the premises where she fell. The judgment of the trial court is supported by the evidence and is in accord with the law. *State ex rel. Badami v. Gaertner,*630 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. App. banc 1982). No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a statement supporting this decision.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 11.1

| | CODE OF ETHICSEDAP TMS 03-04 A | 
| | ------------------------------ | 

---

EDAP TMSCODE OF
ETHICS

As
_______________________________________________________________________________ of EDAP TMS S.A and
its Subsidiaries (the « Company »), I certify that I will adhere to
the following principles and responsibilities, as well as the Companys other legal
and compliance policies and procedures:

| | Act
with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest involving
personal and professional relationships;
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Provide
other officials and  constituents of the Company with information that is full, fair,
accurate,  complete,  objective,  timely and  understandable;
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Comply, to the best of my knowledge, with rules and regulations of governmental entities
as well as other private or public regulatory agencies to which the Company is subject;
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Act
at all time in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, and
without any misrepresentation of material facts;
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Act
objectively, without allowing my independent judgment to be subordinated;
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Respect the confidentiality of Company information, except when authorized or otherwise
required to make any disclosure, and avoid the use of any Company information for personal
advantage;
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Share
my knowledge and skills with others to improve the Companys communication to its
constituents;
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Promote
ethical behavior among employees under my supervision at the Company; and
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Achieve
responsible use of and control over all assets and resources of the Company entrusted to
me.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: | _______________________________________
Name:Title:
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.1  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Opencell Biomed Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mislav Pavelic, in my capacities set forth below of the Company, 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.   April 14, 2009 /s/ Mislav Pavelic Mislav Pavelic, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
Dynacraft Golf Products, Inc.
                           Subsidiaries of Registrant


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary          Incorporated In   Doing Business as Name
------------------          ---------------   ---------------------
<S>                           <C>            <C>
Pal Joey Custom Golf Inc. (A) Ohio            Pal Joey and Pal Joey Pro Shop
Dynacraft Real Estate  (B)    Ohio            Dynacraft Real Estate Holding Inc.
   Holding Inc.
Diamond Golf International (C)Great Britain   Diamond Golf International (also)
   Limited (C)                                   Dynacraft Europe


(A)     100% owed by Dynacraft Golf Products, Inc.
(B)     100% owed by Pal Joey Custom Golf, Inc.
(C)     51% owed by Dynacraft Golf Products, Inc.

</TABLE>




                                   EXHIBIT 21
<PAGE>
ex10_55.htm


    Exhibit
10.55

     

      
        

      

    

    


    


    Summary of Compensation for
Non-Employee Directors

    Effective
January 1, 2009

    


    


    


    Annual Board
Retainer                                                             $  50,000

    


    Board Meeting
Fee                                                                  
 $    1,500 per meeting attended

    


    Committee Chair Annual
Retainer

    Audit/Compensation                                               $  15,000

    


    Committee Chair Annual
Retainer

    Other
Committees                                                     $  10,000

    


    Committee Meeting
Fee                                                             $    1,500
per meeting attended

    


    Annual Equity Grant
(1)                                                             $125,000

    


    


    
      	
              (1)

            	
              Granted
      in the form Restricted Stock Units effective January 30,
      2009.  Each director received 8,760 Restricted Stock Units which
      will vest in full on December 31,
2009.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 Defendants Michael Lacey and James Larkin have filed a Motion for Leave to File 

Over-Length Opposition to United States’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Doc. 179), and 

they ask the Court to allow them to file an opposition that exceeds the page limits by 

seven pages. The Court finds good cause to allow the additional pages. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendants Lacey and Larkin 

may file a response to the government’s motion to disqualify counsel that exceeds the 

page limit by seven pages. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court will treat Defendants’ 

response (Doc. 180) as properly filed. The Court reminds counsel that they must lodge a 

proposed filing that exceeds page limits with a motion to exceed the page limits, and the 

Court will determine if the document may be filed. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 2018. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 185 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SPL

ORDER

Upon Joint Motion of Defendants, by and through their attorneys, for Reconsideration of

the Court’s Order [396-1] Granting Government’s (Sealed) Motion to Compel Destruction of

Inadvertently Disclosed Documents [343] and Order [398] Denying (In Part) Unopposed Motion

for Extension of Time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Joint Motion for Reconsideration of

the Court’s Order [396-1] Granting Government’s (Sealed) Motion to Compel Destruction of

Inadvertently Disclosed Documents [343] and Order [398] Denying (In Part) Unopposed Motion

for Extension of Time;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the Defendants’ deadlines for filing Responses

to _____________________ and the Government’s deadline for Replies to

____________________.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) from _________________ to

______________________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 399-1 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 1