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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RICHARD GOLDEN, 

an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:09-cv-13561 

v. 

Hon. Patrick J Duggan 

Magistrate Mona K Majzoub 

JANG H. LIM, d/b/a 

DENTAL USA, INC., 

Defendant. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 WHEREAS, the parties having stipulated to the entry of this order in connection with the 

settlement, and 

 The Court having otherwise fully advised in the premises; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and adjudged that this case be dismissed without prejudice, 

with each side to bear its own costs and attorney fees and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of 

this matter for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement Agreement entered into between the 

Parties. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 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-13561-PJD-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 89
2

 

Agreed: 

_/s/Douglas W. Sprinkle________ _/s/Byung H. Whang w/ consent 1-15-10 

Douglas W. Sprinkle (P25326) Byung H. Whang 

Ronald W. Citkowski (P34732) 1111 Plaza Dr., Ste. 755 

Gifford, Krass, Sprinkle, Schaumburg, IL 60173 

Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. (847) 517-3696 

2701 Troy Center Drive, Ste. 330 (847) 517-2925 (Fax) 

P.O. Box 7021 whangbyunghui@yahoo.com 

Troy, MI 48007 

(248) 647-6000 

(248) 647-5210 (Fax) 

litigation@patlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant

2:09-cv-13561-PJD-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 90
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN JOSE DE LOS SANTOSOROZCO, a.k.a. Juan De Los SantosOrozco,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10286

D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01536-RM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Juan Jose De Los Santos-Orozco appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

FILED

AUG 01 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
we affirm.

Santos-Orozco contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary

because he did not fully comprehend the nature of pleading guilty without a plea

agreement, rather than accepting the plea agreement offered by the government. 

We review de novo. See United States v. Carter, 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir.

2015). The record reflects that the district court explained to Santos-Orozco the

effect of pleading guilty both under the proposed plea agreement and without the

benefit of that agreement. Contrary to Santos-Orozco’s contention, his statements

at the hearing reflect that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See United

States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1115 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial weight is

given to defendant’s in-court statements).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-10286
EX-10.56



 Exhibit 10.56 

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 

Compensation: Non-employee directors shall receive the following remuneration: 

 

					
	 Cash retainer
	  	 	$80,000	  
	 Lead Director retainer
	  	 	$25,000	  
	 Non-Executive Chairman retainer
	  	 	$100,000	  
	 Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	  	 	$10,000	  
	 Audit Committee and Leadership Development and Compensation Committee fee
	  	$	15,000 per committee	  
	 Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Chair fee
	  	 	$20,000	  
	 Audit Committee Chair and Leadership Development and Compensation Committee Chair fee
	  	$	25,000 per committee	  
	 Deferred Stock Payment
	  	 	$100,000	  

  
  

Directors may elect to defer payment of their fees under the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. Under this Plan, a non-employee
director may elect to have payment of all or a portion of the director’s fees deferred and credited to a deferred stock account or into a deferred cash account. Non-employee directors who were former employees of SUPERVALU are not eligible to
participate in the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan and instead receive an equivalent amount in cash compensation. If a director chooses to defer fees into a deferred stock account, SUPERVALU then credits the director’s account with
an additional amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of fees the director has elected to defer and contributes the total amount in the director’s account to a grantor (“rabbi”) trust that uses the amount to purchase shares of
SUPERVALU common stock, which are then allocated to an account for the director under the trust. Each director is entitled to direct the trustee to vote all shares allocated to the director’s account in the trust. The common stock in each
director’s deferred stock account will be distributed to the director after the director leaves the Board, in accordance with the directors’ payment election. Until that time, the trust assets remain subject to the claims of our creditors.
Dividends paid on the shares of common stock held in each of the directors’ accounts are used to purchase additional shares for these accounts each quarter. If a director chooses to defer all or a portion of fees into a deferred cash account,
interest is payable on the amount of deferred cash compensation at an annual rate equal to the twelve-month rolling average of Moody’s Corporate Average Bond Index for the twelve-month period ending in the month of October preceding the first
day of the calendar year. Payment in cash is made from the cash account after the director leaves the Board.
175 La. 177

#### UNITED RAILWAY MEN’S OIL ASS’N v. DUPUY et al.

No. 28117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1932.

See, also, 173 La. 392, 137 So. 73.

D. W. B. Kurtz, Jr., of Columbia, Mo., and James J. Landry, of New Orleans, for appellant.

L. K. Watkins, -of Minden, for appellees.

ODOM, J.

Appellee has moved to' dismiss this appeal on the ground of abandonment, alleging that the transcript was filed in this court on November 24, 1926, and that:

> “The appellants have made no effort to have the case tried or advanced for trial, but permitted the court, without objection, to-have the case placed on the delay or dead docket, and have abandoned the appeal andi thereby acquiesced in the judgment of the lower court by allowing five years to elapse without any effort to have the judgment of the lower court reversed on appeal, which period of prescription is pleaded by your petitioners.”

Article 3519 of the Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 107 of 1898, p. 155, provides that:

> “Whenever the plaintiff having made his demand shall at any time before obtaining final judgment allow five years to elapse without having taken any steps in the prosecution thereof, he' shall be considered as having abandoned the same.” ■

More than five years elapsed between the date on which the transcript in this case was filed and the date on which appellee filed its motion to dismiss. During these five years, appellant took no steps in the prosecution of the appeal. But article 3519 of the Code, as amended, has no application to cases pending on appeal in the appellate courts of the state. This was definitely decided in the case of Mrs. Perina Savoie Verrett et al. v. Julian Savoie (La. Sup.) 141 So. 854, decided Monday, April 25, 1932.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
#### Richard D. Palmateer, Plaintiff, v. Mary A. Clexton and Others, Defendants. James B. Eveline, Appellant; Mutual National Bank of Troy, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred, except Kellogg and Sewell, JJ., dissenting.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

ROLLER BEARING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofRoller Bearing Company of America, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period endingMarch 29, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Hartnett, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Michael  J. Hartnett               |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael J.  Hartnett                   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |
|                                   |
| July 9, 2003                           |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

This matter having been set for a firm Jury Trial on August 8, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., 

IT IS ORDERED that the completed juror questionnaires will be reviewed at the 

time of the Final Pretrial Conference set for July 27, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605, 

Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, 

Arizona, 85003. The completed questionnaires will be made available to counsel on a USB 

flash drive that can be picked up in the Jury Administration Office on July 21, 2023. 

Counsel shall bring their copies of the questionnaires to the Final Pretrial Conference. 

Counsel are required to return the USB flash drive and all copies of the 

questionnaires to the Courtroom Deputy no later than the last day of trial. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer prior to the 

Final Pretrial Conference regarding the completed questionnaires. On or before July 21, 

2023, chambers will email the parties a form list with the juror numbers, on which the 

parties shall indicate those jurors they agree should be stricken for cause or hardship and 

those jurors they disagree should be stricken for cause or hardship. This joint list shall be 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1634 Filed 07/13/23 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

emailed to Humetewa_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov no later than 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 

2023. The parties shall not file this list. The Court will rule on any disputed jurors at the 

Final Pretrial Conference.

Dated this 13th day of July, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1634 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.55


AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED
POST HOLDINGS, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR
KEY EMPLOYEES


(as restated effective August 1, 2017)






WHEREAS, Post Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the amended and restated Post Holdings, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Key Employees (the “Plan”) effective August 1, 2017;


WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the Plan provides that the Chief Executive Officer may make amendments to the Plan deemed necessary or desirable, which shall be reported to the Corporate Governance and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”);


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the plan, effective October 1, 2019 (and for the sake of clarity, with respect to deferral elections applicable to annual bonuses earned beginning with the Company’s fiscal year 2020 and thereafter) to provide that a participant’s deferral election with respect to an annual bonus (including an annual bonus that qualifies as performance-based compensation under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code) as provided in Section 3.1(a) shall apply only to that portion of the annual bonus which would otherwise be paid in cash, unless otherwise specified by the Company and set forth in a Deferral Election. 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 1.13 is amended to add the following provision to the end thereof:




“Unless otherwise specified by the Company and set forth in the Deferral Election, a Participant’s election to defer an annual bonus (including, without limitation, an annual bonus that is also Performance-Based Compensation) shall apply only to the portion of the bonus that would otherwise be payable in cash.”










[remainder of page left intentionally blank; signature page follows]











In WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed on this 27th day of September 2019.




	
			
	 
	POST HOLDINGS, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Robert V. Vitale

	 
	Robert V. Vitale 
President and Chief Executive Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3681

To provide that if an employer provides additional leave to a parent for

the birth such employer shall provide the same leave to a parent for

an adopted child or a foster child.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 19, 1996

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in addition to the

Committees on Government Reform and Oversight, and House Oversight,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To provide that if an employer provides additional leave

to a parent for the birth such employer shall provide

the same leave to a parent for an adopted child or

a foster child.

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

3 SECTION 1. LEAVE FOR ADOPTED AND FOSTER CHILDREN.

4 If an employer provides to an employee who is a par5 ent leave, in addition to the leave required by the Family

6 and Medical Leave Act of 1993, for the birth of a child,
2

•HR 3681 IH

1 such employer shall provide the same leave to an employee

2 who is a parent for an adopted child or a foster child.

3 For purposes of enforcement such additional leave shall

4 be considered leave required to be provided under section

5 102 of such Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




I, Gary
Spaniak, Chief Financial Officer of Classic Costume Company,
Inc.,  (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1)    the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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
Registrant.




May
      14, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Gary
      SpaniakGary
      SpaniakChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Southwest Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 8, 2007
    /s/ Rick GreenRick GreenPresident and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08

- 11

- 002 81

- C V

IN THE INTEREST §

§ Appeal from the

OF 65th Judicial District Court

M.C., A CHILD

. §

§ of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010CM6361 )

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to render judgment in accordance with the

agreement entered into by Appellant, J.R.C., and Appellee, the Texas Department of Family and

Protective Services (the Department)

. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)

. The motion is granted. In

accordance with the joint motion, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment terminating

J.R.C.’s parental rights to M.C. and affirm the portion of the trial court’s judgment appointing

the Department as permanent ma naging conservator of M.C. The parties additionally request

that we leave intact the judgment terminating the parental rights of M.C.’s mother because she

not appealed the trial court’s judgment. Given that the child’s mother has not appealed, the trial

court’s judgment has become final as to her and our opinion and judgment will have no effect on

the p ortion of the judgment terminating her parental rights. Finally, we make no order as to costs

because J.R.C. is indigent for purposes of appeal

.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

January 25, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.
May 22 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LOUIS DOUGLAS ROGERS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00182

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard ON REMAND from the Court of Criminal Appeals on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformation by this Court

. Therefore, the judgment is modified to reflect court costs of $564. The Court orders the judgment be AFFIRMED as MODIFIED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Case 1:09-cv-13249-TLL-CEB Document 34-3 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:09-cv-13249-TLL-CEB Document 34-3 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:09-cv-13249-TLL-CEB Document 34-3 Filed 09/17/2009 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A


From: William Delgado <WDelgado@willenken.com>

Date: January 2, 2010 11:55:24 PM EST

To: "'enrico.schaefer@traverselegal.comTM <enrico.schaefer@traverselegal.com>
Subject: RE: Joint Planning Conference Report

Enrico,

I very much doubt we will be able to reach an agreement on the Joint Report. Our
position is going to be that discovery should not commence until the pleadings are
finalized (and they cannot be finalized until the Judge has ruled on our Motion for
Reconsideration) and, once it commences, fact discovery should be permitted for
a period of 12 months. Unless you are on board with that—and something tells
me you won’t be—it looks like we will be in Detroit in about a week.

Ihave re-read the Judge’s order and it appears that in the event the parties cannot
agree, each party should file their own proposal so that is what I intend to do.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Will

From: Enrico Schaefer [mailto:enrico@traverselegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:55 AM

To: William Delgado; ‘Cathy Dittrich’

Subject: Joint Planning Conference Report

William:

Find attached a proposed Joint Conference Report consistent with our conference
yesterday. I have also attached a .pdf version with my thoughts and explanations.


Finally, I will Cathy from my office send you previous orders entered by our Judge for
your review. Our Order is consistent with the approach in this previous case, although
the discovery period we propose and related dates are longer.

If you agree with our proposed dates, let me know. If you have counter-proposals, let
me know as well. Recall that we can avoid the hearing on Jan 11 if we can reach
agreement on this report.

Enrico Schaefer, Attorney
Traverse Legal, PLC

TraverseLegal.com

enrico.schaefer@traverselegal.com

231-932-0411 (office)
231-313-0564 (cell)

231-932-0636 (fax)