alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 By Order entered on the parties’ stipulation on March 29, 2011, the parties were

granted an extension of time until April 25, 2011 to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. However, as of the date of this Order, no

objections have been filed.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND EUGENE LLOYD, JR.,

Petitioner, No. 08-CV-14232

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

THOMAS K. BELL,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S HABEAS CORPUS ACTION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on May 13, 2011 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

 Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter having come before the Court on the March 10, 2011 Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives recommending that

the Court deny Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that this case,

accordingly, be dismissed; and no timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation having been filed;1

 and the Court having reviewed the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the Court’s file of this action and having

2:08-cv-14232-GER-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 05/13/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2340
concluded that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s

petition for habeas corpus relief should be denied; and the Court being otherwise fully

advised in the premises,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation of June 15, 2010 [Dkt. # 22] be, and hereby is, adopted by

this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s petition for habeas corpus relief Dkt. #

1] be, and hereby is DENIED and the above-captioned case, therefore, is DISMISSED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 13, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on May 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14232-GER-PJK Doc # 24 Filed 05/13/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2341
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33141-33142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16316]



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

[[Page 33142]]

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Opportunity to File Amicus Brief in Forrest v. Department of 
Agriculture, Docket Number SF-531D-95-0446-I-1

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: The Merit Systems Protection Board is providing an opportunity 
for interested parties to submit amicus briefs concerning the issue of 
whether appellants in Board appeals can receive an award of 
reimbursement for ``reasonable'' leave time expended to pursue an 
appeal of an appealable action that is ultimately determined to be 
unwarranted, or is rescinded or reversed.

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

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board currently has an appeal 
pending in which it is considering the extent of the relief it can 
award following the reversal or rescission of a personnel action. The 
appellant in the appeal Forrest v. Department of Agriculture, Docket 
No. SF-532D-95-0446-I-1, has argued that he is entitled to an award of 
reimbursement for ``reasonable'' leave time he expended in pursuing his 
appeal of a personnel action that was ultimately rescinded by the 
agency. The appellant argues that his agency should be required to 
restore eight hours of annual leave he used to consult with his 
attorney about his case. The Board is inviting interested parties to 
submit amicus briefs addressing the question of whether the Board has 
the authority to award such relief.

DATES: All briefs in response to this notice shall be filed with the 
Clerk of the Board on or before July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All briefs shall include the case name and docket number 
noted above (Forrest v. Department of Agriculture, Docket No. SF-531D-
95-0446-I-1) and be entitled ``Amicus Brief.'' Briefs should be filed 
with the Office of the Clerk, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1120 
Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20419.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon McCarthy, Deputy Clerk of the 
Board, or Matthew Shannon, Counsel to the Clerk, (202) 653-7200.

    Dated: June 21, 1996.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-16316 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
#### Henzel et al. *v.*Patterson Building and Loan Association No. 2 et al. (Hutzel, Appellant).

Argued October 1, 1937.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

*532*Emanuel Moss,*of *Moss & Moss,*for appellant.

*Herbert L. Maris,*for appellee.

October 27, 1937:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is ruled by tbe decisions of tbe Supreme Court in *Drovin v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.,*265 Pa. 447, 109 A. 128; *Hauser v. York Water Co.,*278 Pa. 387, 123 A. 330; *Kuhbach v. Irving Cut Glass Co.,*220 Pa. 427, 69 A. 981.

The mere fact that the Building and Loan Code of 1933 — (Act of May 5, 1933, P. L. 457) — does not specifically provide that stockholders of building and loan associations shall have the right to inspect the list of stockholders, or be furnished with a list of them, will not be applied so as to deprive them of a common-law right enjoyed by stockholders of corporations generally. The code will not be construed as limiting the rights of stockholders to those specifically enumerated except where the intention to do so is clear. Their right to inspect the list of stockholders of the association is not affected by the fact that our Supreme Court has held *(Brown v. Victor Bldg. Assn.,*302 Pa. 254, 258, 259, 153 A. 349; *Stone v. Schiller B. & L. Assn.,*302 Pa. 544, 551, 153 A. 758) that as between themselves share holders of building and loan associations occupy, in some respects, the status of partners. The rights of a partner, in this respect, are certainly not inferior to those of a stockholder, but the Supreme Court, in those cases, was not dealing with the corporate rights of stockholders of building and loan associations.

A demurrer admits the truth of the *relevant and material*facts averred in the pleading demurred to. It does not admit their sufficiency, nor does it admit irrelevant and immaterial matter pleaded, nor the legal conclusions or inferences sought to be drawn from the facts: *Chester City v. Paxson,*76 Pa. Superior Ct. 40, 45.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 15.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


RiT Technologies Ltd.


Tel-Aviv


Israel.




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of RiT Technologies Ltd. on  Form S-8 (File No., 333-90750 , 333-117646 , 333-141680 and 333-169241) of our report dated June 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of RiT Technologies Ltd. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010, annual report on Form 20-F of RiT Technologies Ltd.





/s/ Somekh Chaikin


Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)


A Member Firm of KPMG International




Tel Aviv, Israel





June 30, 2011
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-72877, 333-91767, 333-30242, 333-41482, 333-59358, 333-100566, and 333-107702) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113674 and 333-33794) of our report dated March 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Vignette Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                     
|Austin, Texas        
|March 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
          CONSOLIDATED  AUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S
          DECEMBER 31, 1999 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
          ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001042420
<NAME>                        Liberty Mint, Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         53,858
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 303,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   816,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,379,281
<PP&E>                                         14,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,400,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       2,282,636
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    3,268,893
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,151,151)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,400,378
<SALES>                                       777,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              777,213
<CGS>                                         543,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,458,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (24,160)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,258,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,258,785)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (643,088)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,901,873)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.25)




</TABLE>
#### Gene T. PATRICK, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Janice M. PATRICK, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 66757.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 21, 1995.

Gail G. Renshaw, Nicholas J. Riggio, Sr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Gene T. Patrick, Pacific, Pro Se.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and RHODES, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment on her motion to modify child support. The court denied her motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed after the hearing on the motion to modify. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 84.16(b).
EX-10.7







Exhibit 10.7




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2002 STOCK PLAN




     This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the FirstMerit Corporation Amended and Restated
2002 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of November 20, 2008.



     WHEREAS, FirstMerit Corporation (the “Company”) previously adopted the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan for compliance with Section 409A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1. Section I.B. of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the definition of “Fair Market Value” in
its entirety and substituting the following therefor:





“Fair Market Value” shall mean with respect to a given day, the reported “closing price” of
a share of Common Stock, or if there were no transactions in the Common Stock on such day,
then the last preceding day on which transactions took place. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the Committee may determine the Fair Market Value in such other manner as
is required by applicable laws or regulations.


2. Section II.D. of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof:





Notwithstanding the foregoing, any adjustment pursuant to this Section shall be made only
to the extent such adjustment complies, to the extent applicable, with Section 409A of the
Code.


3. Section III.D. of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof:





Notwithstanding the foregoing, any adjustment pursuant to this Section shall be made only
to the extent such adjustment complies, to the extent applicable, with Section 409A of the
Code.


4. Section VI. of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following Section VI.E. to the end
thereof:





E. Section 409A of the Code




It is intended that the Awards granted under the Plan be exempt from the application of
Section 409A of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, and the Plan
shall be interpreted, administered and



 









 






operated accordingly. Nothing herein shall be construed as an entitlement to or guarantee
of any particular tax treatment to any Participant. None of the Company, any Subsidiary,
the Board or the Committee shall have any liability with respect to any failure to comply
with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated
thereunder.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer effective as of the date set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Christopher J. Maurer	 	 
	 

	 	 

Printed Name: Christopher J. Maurer
	 	 
	 

	 	Its: Executive Vice President – H.R.
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.

CR-18-422-PHX-SPL (BSB) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE 

JOINT REPRESENTATION AND 

JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS 

PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY 

DEFENDANTS MICHAEL LACEY 

AND JAMES LARKIN FOR IN 

CAMERA REVIEW

The Court having reviewed the Government’s Motion for Access to the Joint 

Representation and Joint Defense Agreements Previously Submitted by Defendants 

Michael Lacey and James Larkin for In Camera Review, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion for Access to the Joint Representation and 

Joint Defense Agreements Previously Submitted by Defendants Michael Lacey and James 

Larkin for In Camera Review (the Motion).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Lacey and Larkin shall serve on the 

government copies of the three agreements previously submitted for the Court’s in camera

review as Exhibits A, B and C to the Declaration of James C. Grant (see Doc. 180 at 6-8).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government’s deadline for moving for 

reconsideration of the Court’s Orders denying the government’s Motion for 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 354-1 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

Disqualification (Doc. 338) and Motion to Resolve Certain Attorney-Client Privilege 

Issues (Doc. 345) shall be continued to 14 days after the date of service of the foregoing 

agreements on the government. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 354-1 Filed 10/26/18 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Donnell Alphonso Luckett,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14285

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

US Bank National Association

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [21]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court

hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is

further ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is hereby

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 17, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 17, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14285-NGE-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 08/17/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 304
Exhibit Q

Filed Under Seal

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1355-18 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 16, 2020

NO. 03-20-00021-CV

E. A. A., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order terminating parental rights signed by the trial court on December

17, 2019. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order terminating 

parental rights. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 10.20



 Schedule A to 
 Exhibit 10.20 
 In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 601(a)(4) of Regulation S-K, each of the following named
executive officers has entered into a noncompetition agreement that is substantially identical in all material respects to the form of agreement listed as Exhibit 10.20, except as to the name of the executive, date of execution and governing law:

 Daniel L. Comas 
 Philip W. Knisely 
 James A. Lico 
 Thomas P. Joyce, Jr.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         45
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,548
<PP&E>                                         233,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,417
<BONDS>                                         99,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,071)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,032
<SALES>                                         92,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,017
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (107,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,458)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (91,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to Severance Agreement



 Exhibit 10.45 
 AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT, dated December 23,
2008, is by and between CIRCOR, INC., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), and A. William Higgins (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a severance agreement made as of March 24, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to comply with and meet the requirements of the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive, each intending to be legally bound hereby, do mutually covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Section 2(c)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “a lump sum payment” with the following: 
 “a lump sum payment in cash within 30 days following the Termination Date” 
 2. Section 2(c)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following before the second semicolon in such subsection: 
 “but, in any event, no later than March 15th following the end of the fiscal year to which it relates” 
 3. The
Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect as to all other provisions under said Agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	CIRCOR, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Frederic M. Burditt

	Name:	 	Frederic M. Burditt
	Title:	 	VP, Treasurer
	
	 /s/ A. William Higgins

	A. William Higgins
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 Annual Report of China Southern Airlines
Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xu Jie Bo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 26, 2013 | By:                            | /s/Xu Jie Bo
|-------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------
|                     | Name: Xu Jie Bo               
|                     |                               
|                     | Title: Chief Financial Officer



* This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.