alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY HOXIE, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-10725

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

LIVINGSTON COUNTY, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER RESOLVING LIVINGSTON COUNTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 140] AND DEFENDANT

SIMPSON’S [DOC. 142] AND LIVINGSTON COUNTY

DEFENDANTS’ [DOC. 147] MOTIONS TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

This matter came before the court on Livingston County Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration [Doc. 140] and defendant Simpson’s motion to extend discovery [Doc. 142],

which was concurred in by the Livingston County defendants [Doc. 147]. The court held

a conference with the parties on September 27, 2010, at which time the pending motions

were resolved as follows:

Counsel for plaintiff and the Livingston County defendants will meet to review jail

logs and available reports in order to identify inmate names and records to be retrieved by

jail personnel. 

Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to forward previously subpoenaed jail records to

defendants’ counsel.

The parties agreed that plaintiff’s counsel will examine and/or depose the jail

administrative assistant in charge of maintaining records of jail policies to verify the
2

effective dates of such policies, as represented by Lt. Cremente in his recently filed

affidavit. 

The parties agreed on an amended scheduling order to accomplish additional

discovery and to accommodate the filing of additional dispositive motions, culminating in

a trial date of April 26, 2011. 

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 27, 2010

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 27, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL NO.08-13850

CRUNCHKINS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

-VHALLBARK GOURMET, LLC,

Defendant(s).

 /

PARTIAL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At a session of said Court, held in the 

United States Courthouse, in the City of 

Detroit, State of Michigan, on January 15, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J.DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Due notice of an Order to Show Cause why the above case should not be

dismissed for failure to serve defendant(s) within 120 days of the filing of the complaint,

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has

been mailed to counsel of record. The Court has received no response; therefore

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled case be, and hereby is

DISMISSED for failure to serve as to defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: January 15, 2010

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

record on January 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 41 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 892
EX-10.33



 Exhibit 10.33 

[K2M Letterhead] 
 [Date] 

[Name] 
 [Address] 

 

	 	Re:	RSUs  

 Dear [Name]: 

Reference is made to your Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with K2M Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of
[Date] (the “RSU Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms under your RSU Agreement. 

“Period of Restriction” of your RSU Agreement is deleted in its entirety and hereby replaced with the following: 

“Period of Restriction: Beginning on the Date of Grant and continuing through the earlier of the date of: 

	 	(i)	Grantee’s death, 


	 	(ii)	Grantee’s Disability, 


	 	(iii)	a Change in Control, and 


	 	(iv)	(x) with respect to 50% of the Number of RSUs Granted, May 1, 2015, and (y) with respect to 50% of the Number of RSUs Granted, May 1, 2016.” 


Except as specifically set forth in this Letter Agreement, the terms and conditions of your RSU Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect. 
 Sincerely, 
  

			
		 	K2M GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.
		
		 	 
		 	 By:
 Title:



 Agreed and Accepted: 
  

			
		
		 	 
		 	[NAME]
#### James Clarence MORGAN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8818.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 18, 1938.

Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

*1010J. Charles Dermis, U. S. Atty., and Gerald Shucklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered 'that the appeal in this cause be ' dismissed, that a judgment be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate of this court issue forthwith.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3867

To amend the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act

to extend the Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 1996

Mr. FRISA (for himself, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr.

TOWNS, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. STUDDS, and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill

of Rights Act to extend the Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Developmental Disabil5 ities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments of

6 1996’’.

7 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ALLOTMENTS FOR STATES.

8 Section 130 of the Developmental Disabilities Assist9 ance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6030) is amended
2

•HR 3867 IH

1 by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 and 1996’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 through 1999’’.

3 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO

4 PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL

5 RIGHTS.

6 Section 143 of the Developmental Disabilities Assist7 ance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6043) is amended

8 by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 and 1996’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 through 1999’’.

10 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO

11 UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED PROGRAMS.

12 Section 156(a) of the Developmental Disabilities As13 sistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6066(a)) is

14 amended by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 and 1996’’ and

15 inserting ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 through 1999’’.

16 SEC. 5. REAUTHORIZATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO

17 PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

18 Section 163(a) of the Developmental Disabilities As19 sistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6083(a)) is

20 amended by striking ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 and 1996’’ and

21 inserting ‘‘the fiscal years 1995 through 1999’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3951 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3951

   To permit duty-free treatment for certain structures, parts, and 
            components used in the Gemini Telescope Project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

  Mr. Walker introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To permit duty-free treatment for certain structures, parts, and 
            components used in the Gemini Telescope Project.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN STRUCTURES, PARTS, AND COMPONENTS USED IN THE GEMINI 
              TELESCOPES PROJECT, MAUNA KEA, HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and 
directed to admit free of duty after March 31, 1997, the following 
articles for the use of the Association of Universities for Research in 
Astronomy, Inc. in the construction of the Gemini North Telescope, 
Mauna Kea, Hawaii, as part of the international Gemini 8-Meter 
Telescopes Project:
            (1) The telescope enclosure, produced by Coast Steel 
        Fabricators, Ltd., Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada.
            (2) The telescope structure assemblies, produced by G.I.E. 
        Telas, Cannes le Bocca, France.
            (3) The telescope mirror coating plant, produced by the 
        Royal Greenwich Observatories, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
            (4) The telescope secondary mirror, produced by Carl Zeiss, 
        Oberkochen, Germany.
            (5) The telescope acquisition, guiding, and wavefront 
        sensing equipment, produced by the Royal Greenwich 
        Observatories, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
    (b) Reliquidation.--If the liquidation of the entry of any article 
described in subsection (a) has become final before April 1, 1997, the 
entry shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be 
reliquidated on April 1, 1997, in accordance with the provisions of 
this section and the appropriate refund of duty made at the time of 
such reliquidation.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Foster Daleon Jones, Appellant

No. 06-15-00158-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Red 

River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR02262). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Foster Daleon Jones, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 29, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Jeffrey Scott SHUEY, Appellant, v. MAXWELL-GABEL CONTRACTING and American States Insurance, Respondents.

No. WD 51854.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Angelo Falcone, North Kansas City, for appellant.

Rex Henoch, Lenexa, KS, Douglas Green-wald, Lenexa, KS, for respondents.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Scott Shuey suffered injuries from an automobile accident on his way home from work. He contends that his injuries should be compensated under workers’ compensation because he gave a co-employee a ride to the job site, transported materials to the job site, was paid for his gas and travel time by his employer, Maxwell-Gabel Contracting, and stopped by another job site to make sure the tools were locked up. All of this evidence, however, was controverted by the employer’s evidence. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied Shuey’s claim for compensation determining that his injuries did not arise out of, and in the course of, his employment. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 11, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 11, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0231. PENELOPE OPAL GILSON-KEARNS et al. v. FAIRWAY FORD OF AUGUSTA, INC.. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2016CV0424
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7411
RICHARD A. GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-273-2) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, AssistantAttorney General, Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Angelone , No. CA-95-273-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.13

 

Letter of Guarantee

 

Party A: CTRIP.COM INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

 

Party B: China Lodging Group, Limited

 

Whereas, Party A caused Ctrip Computer Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to lend an amount in RMB (the “Borrowing”) to Hanting Xingkong (Shanghai) Hotel Management Co., Ltd., a company controlled by Party B, in the form of bank’s entrusted loan, and Ctrip Computer Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Hanting Xingkong (Shanghai) Hotel Management Co., Ltd. entered into an Entrusted Loan Contract with China Construction Bank Corporation, Shanghai Minhang Subbranch on December 19, 2013.

 

In order to secure due repayment of the principal and payment of the accrued interest of the Borrowing, Party B hereby undertakes and warrants that where Hanting Xingkong (Shanghai) Hotel Management Co., Ltd. defaults on repayment or payment of any amount of the Borrowing or the accrued interest for whatever reason, Party B shall, within 15 days as from the date on which such default occurs, grant Party A a certain number of its tradable shares which shall be equivalent to and offset against the total amount of the Borrowing outstanding and any and all the accrued interest, including the interest accrued from the date on which such default occurs to the date on which such tradable shares are granted.  The value of such tradable shares shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula: share price (i.e., the market price on the date of grant or the average price over the past 90 days, whichever lower) × number of granted shares  = total amount of the Borrowing outstanding + accrued interest, where, such tradable shares so granted shall be new shares issued by Party B.

 

Party B further warrants that (a) Party B will take the initiative in completing any and all the resolutions, reviews, disclosures, filings, submissions and other formalities that may be required to ensure the effectiveness of this Letter of Guarantee, and (b) where Ctrip Computer Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. suffers any losses, such as traveling expenses, attorney fees and audit fees incurred in connection with the collection of the Borrowing, even if Party B grants certain tradable shares to Party A, Party A shall have the right to demand additional tradable shares from Party B till any and all the losses suffered by Party A are indemnified in full.

 

1











 

Party A: CTRIP.COM INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

 

	
Authorized Representative:
    
	
 
    
	
 
    	
For and on behalf of
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Signed by (seal): 
    	
CTRIP.COM INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
    	
 
    


 

	
 
    	
        /s/Jie Sun
    
	
 
    	
Authorized Signatures(s)
    


 

 

Party B: China Lodging Group, Limited

 

 

	
Authorized Representative:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
For and on behalf of
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Signed by (seal):
    	
China Lodging Group, Limited
    	
 
    
	
 
    


 

	
 
    	
        /s/Qi   Ji
    
	
 
    	
Authorized Signatures(s)
    


 

2
#### Martin MONTALVO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 13-93-273-CR, 13-93-312-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Aug. 11, 1994.

Alfredo Padilla, Brownsville, for appellant.

Luis V. Saenz, John A. Olson, Dist. Atty’s. Office, Brownsville, for appellee.

Before KENNEDY, GILBERTO HINOJOSA and YÁÑEZ, JJ.

OPINION

YAÑEZ, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault (cause number 93-CR-12-E), indecency with a child and attempted indecency with a child (cause number 92-CR-1080-E). The court assessed punishment at 70 years’ imprisonment on each offense, to run concurrently. By a single point of error appellant complains of the introduction of extraneous offense evidence. We affirm.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a prior attempted sexual assault on the victim’s sister. The complaining witness’s mother .testified over appellant’s objection that she chased appellant out of her home when she learned that he tried to take off her daughter’s shorts. After reviewing the record, we find that appellant’s complaint has been waived. Although appellant objected to testimony of the victim’s mother regarding a sexual assault attempt on another one of her children, this same evidence came in later without objection. *Anderson v. State,*717 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), *cert. denied,*496 U.S. 944, 110 S.Ct. 3232, 110 L.Ed.2d 678 (1990); *Morin v. State,*800 S.W.2d 328, 330 n. 1 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.). Elicited by appellant on cross-examination, it does not appear that appellant was attempting to rebut or to meet the effect of that evidence previously admitted over objection. We overrule appellant’s point of error.

The State has submitted a brief raising an issue of unassigned error based on the jury charge.1 Appellant has not raised any additional points of error. Any discussion of the issue would be purely advisory. Having overruled appellant’s only point of error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

1

. Appellant was charged with two offenses. The causes were joined and each offense was tried to the same jury. Two jury charges were given. The juty charge in cause number 93-CR-12-E (aggravated sexual assault) contained the definition of reasonable doubt mandated by *Geesa v. State,*820 S.W.2d 154, 162 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). The charge in cause number 92-CR-1080-E (indecency and attempted indecency with a child) did not. The State raises a question regarding the omitted definition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 09-11283

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEE,

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MASSENGILL,

and MONROE COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendants. 

 /

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Komives’s Report and

Recommendation [dkt 38], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss

without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of his Bible for failure to exhaust and grant

in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 23], dismissing the remainder of Plaintiff’s

claims. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation [dkt 40].

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file, the Report and Recommendation, and

Plaintiff’s Objections. As a result of that review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections,

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and enters it as the findings and conclusions of this

Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

[dkt 23] is GRANTED IN PART.

2:09-cv-11283-LPZ-PJK Doc # 41 Filed 03/28/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 319
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim that he was deprived of his Bible is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 28, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on March 28, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11283-LPZ-PJK Doc # 41 Filed 03/28/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 320
Exhibit 23

Independent Auditors' Consent

The
Board of Directors
Samsonite Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-05467, 333-19281, 333-20775, 333-28663, 333-52185, 333-53935, and 333-57014) on Form S-8 of
Samsonite Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2003 except for notes 1, 8 and 18 as to which the date is May 15, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive loss, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 2003, annual report on
Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation.

Our
report refers to a change in accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets.

Our
report dated March 14, 2003, except for notes 1, 8 and 18 as to which the date is May 15, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company has
suffered recurring losses from operations, has a net capital deficiency and will default on payments due under its senior credit facility unless it is successful in completing possible
recapitalization or financing transactions or extending the maturity date of the senior credit facility, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
consolidated financial statements and financial statements schedule do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

|                              |  | KPMG LLP
|----------------------------- |  | --------
|Denver, Colorado
May 15, 2003 |  |         



QuickLinks