alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Farnsworth v. Burkhart, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5816.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2016-O HIO -5816 F ARNSWORTH ET AL ., A PPELLANTS , v. B URKHART ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Farnsworth v. Burkhart, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5816.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., and Dodd v. Croskey. (No. 2014-1909—Submitted August 31, 2016—Decided September 15, 2016.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Monroe County, No. 13 MO 14, 2014-Ohio-4184.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is affirmed on the authority of Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio-5796, ___ N.E.3d ___, and Dodd v. Croskey , 143 Ohio St.3d 293, 2015-Ohio-2362, 37 N.E.3d 147. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , and F RENCH , JJ., concur. O’N EILL , J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion.Supreme Court of Ohio

2 P FEIFER , J., dissents.

_________________ O’N EILL , J., concurring in judgment only. {¶ 2} I concur in judgment only. I would hold that the 1989 version of the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, former R.C. 2301.56, Sub.S.B. No. 223, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 981, operated on a rolling l ook-back period. Consistent with my dissenting opinion in Walker v. Shondrick-Nau , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2016-Ohio5793, ___ N.E.3d ___, I would also hold that the 1988 recorded deed at issue in this case that transferred the surface estate to Virgil and Theresa Farnsworth while indicating the reservation of the mineral interest held by Veronica Burkhart was a qualifying title transaction and therefore a saving event under the 1989 version of the Dormant Mineral Act. Thus, there wa s no abandonment of the mineral interest prior to the effective date of the 2006 ve rsion of the Dormant Mineral Act, 2006 Sub.H.B. No. 288. Accordingly, the mineral holders’ 2012 claim to preserve that was filed after the Farn sworths filed a notice of abandonment under the 2006 Dormant Mineral Act was sufficient to prevent abandonment under the 2006 version of the law.

_________________ Theisen Brock, L.P.A., James S. Huggins, Daniel P. Corcoran, and Kristopher O. Justice, for appellants. Stubbins, Watson, & Bryan Co, L.P.A., Mark W. Stubbins, and Grant J. Stubbins, for appellees.

_________________
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

DAVID EISENBERG

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Arizona State Bar No. 017218

Telephone: 602.237.5076

Email: david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla,

Defendant.

CR 18-00422-06-PHX-DJH-DMF

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S NOTICE

OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANT

VAUGHT’S OBJECTION TO FRYECOOPER HEARING AND MOTION

TO VACATE (Doc. 1681)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby gives notice that

he joins in Defendant Joye Vaught’s Objection to Frye-Cooper Hearing And Motion to Vacate

 (Doc. 1681).

Mr. Padilla agrees with the arguments made in Ms. Vaught’s motion and adopts the

positions set forth in the motion as if fully set forth herein.

Respectfully submitted this 9 day of August, 2023. th

s/ David Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1689 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 9, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of record.

 s/ David Eisenberg 

 David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1689 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2
Section 6. Section 409A Compliance. It is intended that the terms of this RSU Awardwill comply with Section 409A of the Code to the extent applicable, and will be interpreted andconstrued in a manner consistent with such intent. Any payment under the RSU Award that is tobe made hereunder as a result of the Participant’s termination of service must satisfy therequirements for a “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code.Section 7. Restrictions on Transfer. Except as provided in Section 10.6 of the Plan,neither this RSU Award nor any RSUs covered hereby may be sold, transferred, pledged, assigned orotherwise alienated or hypothecated, other than by will, by the laws of descent and distribution,other than to Company as a result of forfeiture of the RSUs as provided herein.Section 8. No Voting Rights. The RSUs granted pursuant to this Award, whether or notvested, will not confer any voting rights upon the Participant, unless and until the Award is paidin Shares.Section 9. Award Subject to Plans. This RSU Award is subject to the terms of thePlan, the terms and provisions of which are hereby incorporated by reference. In the event of aconflict or ambiguity between any term or provision contained herein and a term or provision of thePlan, the Plan will govern and prevail.Section 10. Changes for Corporate Events. The RSUs under this RSU Award shall besubject to the provisions of Section 10.13 of the Plan relating to adjustments by the Board as aresult of certain Corporate Events.Section 11. Governing Law. This Award Agreement shall be construed and enforced inaccordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to the choice of lawprinciples thereof.[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
 
2

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Award as of the date first written above.           RCN CORPORATION             By:                   Name:        Title:               PARTICIPANT                    Name:    [Signature Page to Restricted Stock Unit Award]
 
3
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2









	 	 	 
	To:

	 	Nancee R. Berger
	From:

	 	West Corporation Compensation Committee
	Date:

	 	February 23, 2009
	 
	 	 
	Re:

	 	Exhibit A





This Exhibit A for 2009 is entered into pursuant to your Employment Agreement.





	1.	 	Your base salary will be $600,000.
	 
	2.	 	Effective January 1, 2009, you will be eligible to receive a performance bonus based upon
West Corporation’s Adjusted EBITDA less interest income and unrealized synergies
(“Compensation Adjusted EBITDA”) growth for West Corporation in 2009. Compensation Adjusted
EBITDA for each quarter will be compared to the same quarter in the previous year to advance a
pro-rata portion of the bonus. Each $1M increase in Compensation Adjusted EBITDA for the year
over 2008 Compensation Adjusted EBITDA will result in a $37,840 bonus. If any portion of the
bonus is advanced, 75% of the pro-rata bonus will be paid within thirty (30) days from the end
of the quarter. 100% of the total bonus earned will be paid within thirty (30) days of the
final determination of 2009 Compensation Adjusted EBITDA.
	 
	 	 	Should Compensation Adjusted EBITDA exceed $671M for the year, you will eligible to receive
$47,300 for every $1M of Compensation Adjusted EBITDA above that threshold.
	 
	 	 	In the event there is a negative year-to-date profit calculation at the end of any quarter
and a pro-rata portion of the bonus has been advanced in a previous quarter, “loss carry
forward” will result and applied to the next quarterly or year-to-date calculation.
	 
	3.	 	All objectives are based upon West Corporation operations and will not include results
derived from mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures or stock buy backs except to the extent
approved by West Corporation’s Compensation Committee.
	 
	4.	 	At the discretion of the Compensation Committee, you may receive an additional bonus based on
the Company’s and your individual performance.





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ Nancee R. Berger
 	 
	 	Employee – Nancee R. Berger
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

GARY M. RESTAINO

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov)

MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov)

PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) 

ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov)

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov)

U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone (202) 412-4136

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

STIPULATION REGARDING 

MOTION TO ENFORCE 

ABATEMENT OF PROSECUTION

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1942 Filed 11/07/23 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

Counsel for the Estate of James Larkin (the “Estate”) and for the United States have 

conferred regarding the matters raised in the Estate’s Motion to Enforce Abatement (Doc. 

1856). The parties have agreed that the motion may be resolved on the following terms. 

1. The United States acknowledges that it is not seeking forfeiture in Case No. 

18-cr-00422 of the assets listed on pages 2-3 of the Estate’s motion at docket number 1856.

2. The United States will work in good faith with the Estate to ensure that 

documents previously recorded on real property in connection with Mr. Larkin’s release 

pending trial can no longer cloud title.

3. The Estate’s request for the release of assets seized from the Republic Bank 

of Arizona account number XXXX2500 is withdrawn.

Accordingly, the United States and the Estate jointly request that the Court sign the 

accompanying proposed form of order.

Dated: November 6, 2023

/s/ Dan G. Boyle

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dated: November 6, 2023

/s/ (e-mail authorization 11-6-2023)

Timothy J. Eckstein, ESQ.

Joseph N. Roth, ESQ.

Attorneys for the Estate of 

JAMES LARKIN

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1942 Filed 11/07/23 Page 2 of 2
**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 RAADR, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacob DiMartino, acting in the capacity of President, Principal Accounting Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our 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/ Jacob DiMartino*

     Jacob DiMartino

     Chief Executive Officer

     Chief Financial Officer

     Principal Accounting Officer

    June 13, 2019
#### The Gough Lumber Co. *v.*Crawford et al.

(No. 22500

Decided June 10, 1931.)

*48
      *Messrs. Slabaugh, S&iberling, Huber S Guinther,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Lee J. Myers,*for defendants in error.

Day, J.

The sole question for determination in this case is: As between the mortgage of Crawford and the mechanic’s lien of the Gough Lumber Company, which shall have priority? It is our duty to so construe statutes and parts thereof that the same may be reconciled and held harmonious, if this can *49be done and their intent and purpose be maintained. The. mechanics ’ lien law, by Section 8321, General Code, made provision for equal priority among all mechanics’ lien holders, and further provided that the date at which such liens should attach should be “from the date the first labor was performed, or the first * * * material * * * was furnished.” Section 8572-68 provides for an affidavit of an adverse claim or lien, which will give such affiant the protection of the general mechanics’ lien law, Section 8321, *supra.*

In this ease the lumber company failed to comply with the provisions of Section 8572-68, General Code, by filing an affidavit as one *‘ ‘*desiring to assert any * * * lien against registered land * * which affidavit would have been memorialized upon the certificate of title as of the date of filing. By. reason thereof we are of opinion that the lumber company’s lien is inferior to the mortgage lien of Crawford; that the date of the lien of the lumber company is the date of its memorializing on the land certificate, to wit, September 24, 1927; that the lien of Crawford on his mortgage began to run from May 18, 1927.

Other questions suggested by counsel in the argu- ' ment of this ease, not presented by this record, and the determination of which are not necessary for the decision of this case, are not considered.

This being the conclusion reached by the courts below, it follows that their judgments in the premises must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors of
Cyberian Outpost, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-37872 and 333-49524) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
333-64403, 333-95899 and 333-53636) on Form S-8 of Cyberian Outpost, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated May 14, 2001, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Cyberian Outpost, Inc. and subsidiaries, as of February 28,
2001 and February 29, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in redeemable preferred stock and stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended February 28,
2001, and related consolidated schedule, which reports appear in the February
28, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cyberian Outpost, Inc. and subsidiaries.

The audit report on the consolidated financial statements of Cyberian Outpost,
Inc. and subsidiaries referred to above contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company's recurring losses from operations and working capital
deficiency raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern. The consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial
statement schedule included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.




                                             /s/ KPMG LLP

Providence, Rhode Island
May 29, 2001
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYS  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Kenneth M. Miller, Esq. (949) 369-3700 5/2/18

Bienert, Miller & Katzman PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente CA 92673

2:18-cr-00422-SPL Steven P. Logan April 30, 2018 April 30, 2018

USA v JAMES LARKIN Phoenix Arizona

✔

✔

✔ 4/30/18

✔

✔

pkralich@bmkattorneys.com

/s/Kenneth M. Miller

May 2, 2018

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 128 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 814 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 814

        Honoring the life and service of Dewey Lee Fletcher, Jr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2009

  Mr. Fleming (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Cao, Mr. 
    Cassidy, Mr. Melancon, and Mr. Scalise) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Honoring the life and service of Dewey Lee Fletcher, Jr.

Whereas the United States honors Lee Fletcher as a public servant, mentor, and 
        friend to many;
Whereas Lee Fletcher was born in Oak Grove, Louisiana, on April 29, 1966, and 
        reared on a horse ranch and cotton farm by his grandparents Dayton C. 
        Brown and Pat Brown;
Whereas Lee Fletcher served as Student Body President at Louisiana Tech 
        University and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in 
        Agricultural Education in 1989;
Whereas Lee Fletcher received a Master of Business Administration degree from 
        Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge in 2000;
Whereas Lee Fletcher served as an aide in the Administration of President George 
        H. W. Bush, District Director to Congressman Jim McCrery, Chief of Staff 
        to Congressman John Cooksey, and Chief of Staff to Congressman John 
        Fleming;
Whereas Lee Fletcher has been recognized as one of the greatest political minds 
        in Louisiana, instrumental in electing candidates to local, State, and 
        Federal office;
Whereas Lee Fletcher, through his life, deeds, and service to others, has been, 
        and will continue to be, an inspiration to many, and has touched the 
        lives of all whom he met;
Whereas Lee Fletcher was a man of strength, resilience, and perseverance who 
        overcame the greatest of adversity to succeed;
Whereas Lee Fletcher bravely fought cancer, finally succumbing on September 30, 
        2009, in his home State of Louisiana while watching his beloved 
        Louisiana Tech Bulldogs defeat the University of Hawaii;
Whereas Lee Fletcher will be forever remembered for his service to others, 
        commitment to his ideals, love of family, friends, community, State, and 
        Nation, and for the joy and laughter he brought to all those who knew 
        him; and
Whereas his legacy will live on in the lives of those he touched: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the life of 
Dewey Lee Fletcher, Jr.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02
- 15
- 00179
- CV

IN RE ALLEN F. CALTO N RELATOR

---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 153

- 270690

- 14

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- In his lawsuit against Steve Schiller, Relator Allen F. Calton, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Calton has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this

court to compel the trial court to rule on his motion.
On June 1 , 2015, the trial court signed an “Order Granting Defendant Steve Schiller’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Practice & Remedies Code,” thereby dismissing Calton’s claims against Schiller.

A trial court is authorized to dismiss an inmate’s claim upon making certain findings regarding the inmate’s allegations. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a) (West 2002 ). 2
In our disposition of Calton’s petition, we do no t review the trial court’ s
dismissal. The trial court’s di smissal , however, renders Calton’s petition for writ
of mandamus moot. See In re Lopez , No. 06

- 07

- 00011

- CV, 2007 WL 426734, a t *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Feb. 9 , 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

A ccordingly, we deny Calton’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 1 2 , 2015

2 Specifically, the trial court may dismiss the action before or after service of process, if the trial court determines that (1 ) the allegation of poverty in the affidavit or unsworn declaration is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or (3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by this chapter that the inmate knew was false. Tex. Civ. Prac. & R em. Code Ann. § 14.003(a).