alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 4/6/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 52

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Bobby James Delaney, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20090283

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Brian D. Grosinger, Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Ave. NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Mark T. Blumer, 341 Central Avenue North, Suite 3, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, ND 58072, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Delaney

No. 20090283

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Bobby Delaney appeals from a district court judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of abuse or neglect of a child.  On appeal, Delaney argues there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty of the crimes.  We conclude sufficient evidence exists to support the verdicts and summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                SUBSIDIARIES OF SAMSONITE CORPORATION (Delaware)


Samsonite Europe N.V.                         Belgium
     Samsonite S.A.                           France
     Samsonite Limited                        United Kingdom
     Samsonite B.V.                           Netherlands
     Samsonite Ges.m.b.H.                     Austria
     Samsonite GmbH                           Germany
     Samsonite Hungaria Borond KFT            Hungary
     Samsonite Finanziaria S.r.l.             Italy
          Samsonite SpA                       Italy
     Samsonite Espana S.A.                    Spain
     Samsonite AB (Aktiebolag)                Sweden
     Samsonite A/S                            Denmark
     Samsonite AG                             Switzerland
     Samsonite Slovakia S.r.o.                Slovakia
     Samsonite Sp. z o.o.                     Poland
     Samsonite Finland Oy                     Finland

Samsonite Latinoamerica, S.A. de C.V.         Mexico
     Samsonite Mexico, S.A. de C.V.           Mexico
Samsonite Comercio E Participacoes Ltda.      Brazil
     Samsonite Industrial E Comercial Ltda.   Brazil
Samsonite Canada Inc.                         Canada
Samson S.A. de C.V.                           Mexico
Samsonite Mauritius Limited                   Mauritius
     Samsonite India Limited                  India
Samsonite Singapore Pte Ltd                   Singapore
Samsonite Asia Limited                        Hong Kong
Samsonite Mercosur Limited                    Bahamas
     Samsonite Brasil Ltda.                   Brazil
Samsonite Korea Limited                       Korea
Samsonite Hong Kong Limited                   Hong Kong

Samsonite Company Stores, Inc.                Indiana
Samsonite Pacific Ltd.                        Colorado
Direct Marketing Ventures, Inc.               Colorado
Legacy Luggage Inc.                           Colorado

Astrum R.E. Corp.                             Delaware

McGregor II, LLC                              Delaware
    Hortex Incorporated                       Texas
    McGregor China Corp.                      Delaware
Jody Apparel II, LLC                          Delaware
WMI II, LLC                                   Delaware
#### William F. MATHEW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alden BAKER, Receiver of The First National Bank of Lewisville, Indiana, Defendant-Appellant. Charles J. CALDWELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alden BAKER, Receiver of The First National Bank of Lewisville, Indiana, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 6222, 6223.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 29, 1937.

Paul R. Benson, of New Castle, Ind., and Geo. M. Barnard and Raymond L. Walker, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant.

Chauncey W. Duncan, of Rushville, Ind., and Waldo C. Ging, of Greenfield, Ind., for appellee.

Before EVANS, MAJOR, and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel, and this cause cornes on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the • District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, and briefs of counsel, and on oral argument by Mr. Paul R. Benson, counsel for appellant, and Mr. Waldo C. Ging, counsel for appellee.

On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bobby MADISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 69989.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 24, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 19, 1997.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction by a jury of first-degree murder, § 565.021.1, RSMo 1994, and armed *594criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and life imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tony OWENS, Appellant.

No. 70030.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 18, 1997.

John M. Schilmoeller, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tony Owens, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted first degree robbery, RSMo §§ 564.011 and 569.020,1 one count of armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015, and one count of first degree assault, RSMo § 565.050. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise noted.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Russell S. MARTIN, Appellant.

No. WD 49011.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986.

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32






SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.




/s/ Albert F. BuzzettiAlbert F. BuzzettiChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael LeslerMichael LeslerPresidentNovember 15, 2010
and Chief Operating Officer







39
Exhibit 10.4 Q2 FY2014






        
TWENTY- FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2014 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Brud Drachman ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-four prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:




Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement which, as amended, provides:




2.1     Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $265,200 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2014, to provide as follows:


2.1     Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $270,504 during each year of the Employment Term. Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.


EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Brud Drachman                    By:                 


______________________                Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    
Its:     CEO and President
2:09-cv-12321-PDB-RSW Doc # 95 Filed 03/09/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1494
2:09-cv-12321-PDB-RSW Doc # 95 Filed 03/09/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1495
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAR 19, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-13397

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 08-00026-CR-CDL-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CEDRIC DEON WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 19, 2010)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

William J. Mason, appointed counsel for Cedric Williams in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Williams’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices                           ( print page 45009)                        also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 18, 2008.                

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1. John Smoluch and Donna Smoluch*, both of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, to retain and acquire control of Community Pride Bank Corporation, Ham Lake, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain and acquire control of Community Pride Bank, Isanti, Minnesota.                

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. The Barbara Dean Flaming Trust and Brenda Jean Flaming Salinas, trustee; the Brenda Jean Flaming Trust and Barbara Dean Flaming Waite, trustee; the Michael Todd Flaming Trust and Brenda Jean Flaming Salinas, trustee; and the Flaming Children 2008 Irrevocable Trust and Gerald R. Chelgren, trustee*; all of Cherokee, Oklahoma, part of a group acting in concert, to acquire and retain control of Alfalfa County Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire and retain control of ACB Bank, both in Cherokee, Oklahoma.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 29, 2008.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E8-17670 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BUBBIE D. TILLMAN, a/k/a 

BOBBIE TILLMAN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 09-13005

HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA

GREGORY McQUIGGIN,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 6, 2010, the Court dismissed the petition as time-barred. In the same order, the Court

declined to issue a certificate of appealability or leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Currently

pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because the Court addressed the matter of the appellate

filing fee and a certificate of appealability in its dispositive opinion, the Court will treat

Petitioner’s motions as motions for reconsideration. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days of the judgment under

attack. Local Rule 7.1(h)(1)(E.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2010). Petitioner’s motions are dated July 22,

2010, and were filed with the Clerk of the Court on July 26, 2010. They are untimely even if

deemed filed on the date they were signed. 

Furthermore, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability raises arguments that
2

the Court considered in its dispositive opinion. “Generally, and without restricting the court’s

discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present

the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication.” Local

Rule 7.1(h)(3).

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Court was misled by a “palpable defect” when it

dismissed his habeas petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See id. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate

of appealability [Dkt. #16] and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [Dkt. #15] are

DENIED. Petitioner may apply to the Court of Appeals for a certificate of appealability and for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 3, 2010

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

record on this date, August 3, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager
J-S15025-19

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

LESLIE CRAIG ARNOLD, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1070 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 20, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-33-CR-0000317-2009, 

CP-33-CR-0000318-2009

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and COLINS*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2019

Leslie Craig Arnold, Jr. (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of 

sentence entered following the revocation of his probation. Additionally, 

appellate counsel has filed a petition for leave to withdraw his representation 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we 

quash the appeal and dismiss counsel’s petition.

Appellant violated Pa.R.A.P. 341 by filing a single notice of appeal on 

July 19, 2018, that included two court docket numbers, CP-33-CR-0000317-

2009 and CP-33-CR-0000318-2009. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note 

(“Where . . . one or more orders resolve issues arising on more than one 

docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must 

be filed.”). We issued a rule to show cause why this appeal should not be 
J-S15025-19

- 2 -

quashed. Rule to Show Cause, 8/14/18. Appellate counsel filed a response

indicating that counsel’s error was due to his own inadvertence and not caused 

by Appellant’s conduct. Reply to Rule to Show Cause, 8/24/18, at ¶ 4. 

Counsel averred that he had previously filed multiple appeals of lower court 

dockets through a single notice of appeal and that this Court allowed those

appeals to proceed as filed. Id. at ¶ 6. Counsel requested permission to file 

nunc pro tunc notices of appeal. Id. at 5. We discharged the rule to show 

cause on August 27, 2018, and took no action on counsel’s request because 

it was not made through an application for relief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 123.

Our Supreme Court held on June 1, 2018, that prospectively, “when a 

single order resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, 

separate notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in 

quashal of the appeal.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 977 (Pa. 

2018). Because Appellant’s non-compliant notice of appeal was filed after the 

date of the Walker decision, we are constrained to quash the appeal. Accord 

Commonwealth v. Williams, ___ A.3d ___ 2019 PA Super 81 (Pa. Super. 

filed March 20, 2019) (quashing appeal where appellant filed a single notice 

of appeal containing multiple docket numbers on June 5, 2018, just four days 

after the Walker decision). We quash without prejudice to Appellant’s right 

to seek collateral relief.

Appeal quashed. Petition for leave to withdraw dismissed. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.
J-S15025-19

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/17/2019
EXHIBIT 10(A)

                         LETTERHEAD
                  BNY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                 1290 Avenue of the Americas
                     New York, NY 10104
                        212-408-7000

July 16, 1998

Lincoln Snacks Company
4 High Ridge Park
Stamford, Connecticut 06905

     Re:  Waiver and Consent

Gentlemen:

     Reference is made to the Revolving Credit, Term Loan and Security
Agreement between you and BNY Financial Corporation, as successor-in-interest 
to The Bank of New York Commercial Corporation, dated December
3, 1993, as supplemented and amended (the "Loan Agreement").  You have
requested that we waive a certain covenant within the Loan Agreement and
consent to a certain transaction, to the extent and as more fully
described in this letter.  Initially capitalized terms used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the
Loan Agreement.  

     Pursuant to your request, we hereby agree to waive as a default
under the Loan Agreement the transfer of control of Borrower resulting
from the sale of approximately 3,600,000 share of your common stock by
the Original Owner to Brynwood Partners III on or about June 8, 1998
(the "transfer of control") in violation of the Change of Control
covenant set forth in Section 10.13 of the Loan Agreement, and we
consent to such transfer of control to Brynwood Partners III.  

     The waiver and consent provided herein are specifically limited to
the section of the Loan Agreement set forth above, and no waiver of, or
consent with respect to, any other term, condition, covenant, agreement
or other aspect of the Loan Agreement is intended or implied.  Except
for the specific circumstances covered by this letter, no other aspect
of the covenant referred to in this letter is waived, including without
limitation for any other circumstance, and no such additional waiver is
intended or implied.  

     If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by
signing and returning to us the enclosed copy of this letter.  

                              Very truly yours,
                              BNY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                              By:   /s/ Anthony Viola
                                    ------------------
                              Name:  Anthony Viola
                              Title:     Vice President

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:
LINCOLN SNACKS COMPANY

By:  /s/ Kristine A. Crabs
     ------------------------
Name:  Kristine A. Crabs
Title: Chief Financial Officer