alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas J. KAYSER, Appellant.

No. 53999.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 17, 1989.

R.G. Costantinou, St. Louis, for appellant.

Gary M. Siegel, Asst. Pros. Atty., Clayton, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals from his jury conviction of resisting arrest, a Class A misdemeanor, for which he was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail and fined $100. We affirm.

Because defendant failed to file a motion for new trial, he has preserved nothing for appellate review. Rule 29.11(d); *State v. Hanes,*729 S.W.2d 612, 615[2] (Mo.App.1987). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record for plain error pursuant to Rule 29.12(b).

In his first point, defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 25.16 for the State’s failure to furnish discovery as requested. There is conflict in the record as to whether or not the State complied with defendant’s discovery request. The assistant prosecutor stated he had no memory of furnishing the material requested, but added his file indicated the materials were furnished. Defense counsel did not remember and had no record of receiving the same.

Even assuming discovery was not supplied, we find no manifest injustice resulted therefrom. Although the request for discovery was filed months before trial, defendant never sought a court order to compel discovery, but instead waited until the day of trial to seek sanctions. The record discloses no evidence that prior discovery would have affected the result of defendant’s trial. *See State v. Arnette,*686 S.W.2d 4, 7[4] (Mo.App.1984).

Defendant’s second point on appeal reads as follows:

> *879The court also denied the appellant his fundamental rights to due process and a fair trial in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1 Sec: 10 of the Missouri Constitution, and thus the facts, the errors, the plain error, and the courtroom circumstances so clearly violative of his rights demand that his conviction be set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered.

This point relied on violates Rule 30.06(d) to such an extent it preserves nothing for review. We have reviewed the record for plain error and find none.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 121 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32026-32027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15897]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 
803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect on 
January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). This notice relates to functions that are subject to Board 
jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[STB Finance Docket No. 32861]


R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.; Lease 
Exemption; Clearfield & Mahoning Railway Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the lease by R.J. Corman Railroad 
Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc. of 8.4 miles of rail line of the 
Clearfield & Mahoning Railway Company (C&M) between milepost 17.4 at 
East Bickford and milepost 25.8 at Clearfield, in Clearfield County, 
PA, is exempted from the prior

[[Page 32027]]

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25.
    This proceeding is related to Richard J. Corman--Control 
Exemption--Clearfield & Mahoning Railway Company, STB Finance Docket 
No. 32854, where a concurrently filed petition for exemption to acquire 
a controlling stock interest in C&M is also being granted.

DATES: This exemption will be effective July 21, 1996. Petitions to 
stay must be filed by July 8, 1996. Petitions to reopen must be filed 
by July 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to STB Finance Docket No. 32861 to: 
(1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control 
Branch, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20423, and (2) 
Petitioner's representative: Kevin M. Sheys, Oppenheimer Wolff & 
Donnelly, 1020 19th St., NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5660. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, 
call, or pick up in person from: DC News & Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-
4357/4359. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through 
TDD services (202) 927-5721.]

    Decided: June 6, 1996.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and 
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15897 Filed 6-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 1 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 2 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 3 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 4 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 5 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 6 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 7 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 8 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 10 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 11 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 12 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 13 of 14
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 148-1 Filed 05/18/18 Page 14 of 14
#### David CANTRELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 63418.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 17, 1993.

David Cantrell, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). .
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 101 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow expenses relating 

to all home schools to be qualified education expenses for purposes 

of a Coverdell education savings account. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow expenses relating to all home schools to be qualified education expenses for purposes of a Coverdell education 

savings account. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ALLOWANCE OF HOME SCHOOL EXPENSES AS 

4 QUALIFIED EDUCATION EXPENSES FOR PUR5 POSES OF A COVERDELL EDUCATION SAV6 INGS ACCOUNT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 530(b) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:45 Jan 07, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S101.IS S101

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 101 IS

1 fied elementary and secondary education expenses) is 

2 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara3 graph: 

4 ‘‘(C) PRIVATE SCHOOL.—For purposes of 

5 this section, the term ‘private school’ includes 

6 any home school that meets the requirements of 

7 State law applicable to such home schools, 

8 whether or not such school is deemed a private 

9 school for purposes of State law.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
# FILED
May 24, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT KNO XVILLE

FRANK SANJURJO, et al., ) FILED: May 24, 1999 ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) BLOUNT CHAN CERY ) v. ) NO. 03S01-9901-CH-00001 ) LOWELL

WOODS, ) ) Defendant-App

ellant. )

O R D E R We granted the appellant’s application for permission to appeal to review the decision of the Court of Appeals sitting at Knoxville. After due consideration of the record, briefs, applicable authority, and oral arg ument of the parties, we conclude that the appeal was “Improvidently Granted.” It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal is hereby dis mis sed at c ost s to the app ell ant , fo r wh ich exe cut ion may i ssu e ifnece ssary.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31083-31084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15471]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-127; RM-8805]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Kula, HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by Sonia A. Humphrey seeking the allotment of FM Channel 244A to 
Kula, Hawaii, as that locality's first local aural transmission 
service. Petitioner is requested to provide additional information to 
establish Kula's status as a community for allotment purposes. 
Coordinates for this proposal are 20-46-00 and 156-20-00.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before August 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Sonia A. Humphrey, c/o Magic 
City Media, Inc., 1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 300, Cheyenne, WY 82001.


[[Page 31084]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-127, adopted May 24, 
1996, and released June 7, 1996. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15471 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 991 

Commending the University of Virginia men’s soccer team for winning the 

2009 Division I NCAA National Championship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. PERRIELLO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the University of Virginia men’s soccer team 

for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Championship. 

Whereas the University of Virginia men’s soccer team won 

the 2009 Division I national championship, defeating the 

University of Akron at WakeMed Soccer Park in Cary, 

North Carolina, on December 13, 2009; 

Whereas the University of Virginia played through 2 suddendeath overtimes and a penalty-kick shootout to defeat the 

University of Akron; 

Whereas goaltenders Diego Restrepo from the University of 

Virginia and David Meves from the University of Akron 

held both teams scoreless through regulation and overtime; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 991 IH 

Whereas Sean Hiller scored the game-winning goal in the 

penalty kick shootout; 

Whereas goalkeeper Diego Restrepo made 3 saves in regulation, 1 save in the penalty kick shootout, and was named 

defensive most valuable player of the College Cup; 

Whereas midfielder Jonathan Villanueva earned recognition 

as offensive most valuable player of the College Cup; and 

Whereas head coach George Gelnovatch led the University of 

Virginia to its sixth national championship and first since 

1994: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the University of Virginia men’s soccer team 

3 for winning the 2009 Division I NCAA National Cham4 pionship. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
exv10w53






Exhibit 10.
53



DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATORY ARRANGMENTS BETWEEN MOTOROLA, INC. AND GREGORY Q. BROWN AND
BETWEEN MOTOROLA, INC. AND SANJAY K. JHA (as of December 15, 2008)



Voluntary Compensation Reductions



Motorola Co-CEOs Greg Brown and Sanjay Jha will voluntarily take a 25 percent decrease in base
salary in 2009 and forego 2008 bonuses under the Company’s annual cash incentive plan (“Annual
Incentive Plan”). In the first quarter of 2009, the Compensation and Leadership Committee has
agreed to make a grant of restricted stock units to Dr. Jha with a value equal to: $2.4 million
less the amount of cash that would have been payable to Mr. Brown under the Annual Incentive Plan
had he not foregone his annual cash incentive. The restricted stock units will vest in two equal
installments on the first anniversary of the grant and on October 31, 2010.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7295

JACK NELSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STAN G. BARRY, Sheriff Fairfax County; RON

ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-04-657-1)

Submitted: November 3, 2004 Decided: November 17, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jack Nelson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to

state a claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nelson v.

Barry, No. CA-04-657-1 (E.D. Va. July 13, 2004). The court has

also received a motion seeking to add four individuals who were not

parties to this case in the district court as parties to this

appeal. We deny this motion. 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
#### Barbara WARNER, Employee-Claimant/Respondent, v. FL AMERICAN ELECTRIC, and National Union Fire Ins. Co., c/o Crawford and Company, Employer/Insurer-Appellants.

No. 65214.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

May 24, 1994.

*652Martin A. Klug, St. Louis, for appellants.

Daniel A. Raniere, St. Louis, Andreia Alexander, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, FL American Electric and National Union Fire Ins. Co., appeal from a judgment entered by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarding respondent, Barbara Warner, temporary total disability benefits from July 9,1991, to October 28,1991, and permanent total disability benefits for life beginning March 20, 1992. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the Labor and Industrial Commission are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
EXHIBIT 15.2





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form F-3 Nos. 333-136811, 333-169793, 333-177224 and 333-179689 and related Prospectuses of EDAP TMS S.A. of our report dated April 26, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of EDAP TMS S.A. as of December 31, 2011 and for each of the years in the two-year period then ended of EDAP TMS S.A. appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of EDAP TMS S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2012.





Lyon, France, April 2, 2013





ERNST & YOUNG Audit





Represented by





/s/Nicolas Sabran


Nicolas Sabran
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance





Exhibit 10.19




GANNETT CO., INC.

OMNIBUS AMENDMENT

TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF

STOCK OPTION AWARDS




Under the

Gannett Co., Inc.

2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan




To comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the
rules and regulations thereunder (Section 409A”), the Terms and Conditions of all Stock Option
Awards that were not earned and fully vested on or before December 31, 2004 are revised as follows:




	 	•	 	The Company agrees to comply with its responsibility under an Award agreement
to reimburse a participant for certain specified legal fees and other
disbursements following a Change in Control by reimbursing the participant for
such expenses within 10 days following the Company’s receipt of an invoice from
the participant; provided that the participant must submit an invoice for such
amounts at least 30 days before the end of the calendar year next following the
calendar year in which such fees and disbursements were incurred.






	 	•	 	To the extent that the Awards are subject to Section 409A, they are intended to
comply with the requirements of Section 409A and the Award agreements shall be
interpreted and administered in accordance with that intent. If any provision of
the Award agreements would otherwise conflict with or frustrate this intent, the
provision shall not apply.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gannett Co., Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer as of December 31, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	GANNETT CO., INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Roxanne V. Horning
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Roxanne V. Horning 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President/Human Resources
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 

Wesley Eugene Sellers, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FCA US LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00923-PHX-BSB 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. 58.) On September 13, 2018, Magistrate 

Judge Bridget S. Bade filed a Report and Recommendation with the Court recommending 

that this matter be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). (Doc. 59.) To date, 

no objections have been filed. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the 

Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service 

of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written 

objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to 

a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of 

the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on 
- 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 

appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of 

finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 59.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter with prejudice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 

 Dated this 11th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee 

Senior United States District Judge