alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
183 La. 410

#### STATE v. LOGNION.

No. 33540.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

Emile A. Carmouche, of Jennings, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., Jas. O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., John J. Ro-tura, Dist. Atty., of Lake Charles, and Lessley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of striking with intent to murder. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to hard labor in the State Penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than three years.

The record contains no bills of exception or assignment of errors. We find in the record, however, a motion for a new trial, which sets .out, first, that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and, second,-“that the court erred to the prejudice of the defendant, in ruling as the court did on the questions and matters covered in detail and as may appear fully in the formal and regular bills of exception requested by counsel for the defendant at the trial of this cause, all of which arc annexed hereto and made part hereof as though written herein in extenso, - together with the evidence taken on the trial of the said cause in connection with said bills of exception referred to and also made part hereof.”

The proposition that a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for review is so well settled that we deem it unnecessary to cite the cases which support it.

As -to the second ground, as we have already said, there are no bills of exception in the record and nothing whatever to show what rulings of the court were objected to by counsel for the defendant. The verdict and sentence must .therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
1

 This conference is subject to cancellation upon notification by counsel that they

have received a substantive response from FDIC and that for that or other reasons they

have decided to terminate the litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

DEBORAH WILSON and DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-12626

MAIN STREET BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

ORDER SCHEDULING A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

On August 18, 2009, the court conducted a scheduling conference in the abovecaptioned case. Counsel informed the court that Plaintiffs filed their administrative proof

of claim with Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and that

Plaintiffs have had no response from FDIC although FDIC’s time to respond to the claim

has expired. To prepare to expeditiously resolve this matter,

IT IS ORDERED that the court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel

for Plaintiffs, counsel for FDIC, and a representative from FDIC’s general counsel on

August 27, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. 1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FDIC’s counsel Mark C. Knoth shall place the

conference call.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-12626-RHC-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 83
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-12626.WILSON.Scheduling.Telephone.FDIC.ljd.wpd

2

Dated: August 20, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-12626-RHC-RSW Doc # 4 Filed 08/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 84
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.8









SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION FOR
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
Adopted effective as of January 21, 2020


This schedule describes the compensation payable by ChannelAdvisor Corporation (the “Company”) to individuals who are not employed by the Company but serve as members of the Company's Board of Directors. The compensation consists of cash and equity compensation components as described below.  In addition, the Company will pay or reimburse directors for reasonable expenses incurred in performing the duties of the director in accordance with the Company's business expense reimbursement policy and procedures. This schedule is not intended to create any contractual obligation with any director and may be amended by the Company at any time.


Cash Compensation:


Annual retainer for indicated role:


	
		
	Member of the Board of Directors 
	$50,000

	Chair
Chair of the Audit Committee
	$30,000
$20,000

	Chair of the Compensation Committee
	$10,000

	Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	$6,000

	Member of the Audit Committee
	$7,000

	Member of the Compensation Committee
	$5,000

	Member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	$3,000






Each non-employee director will be paid the retainer listed above for membership on the Board of Directors and for each other role in which the director serves. Committee Chairs will receive the retainer for service as chair in lieu of the retainer for committee membership. Effective July 1, 2014, the retainer will be earned on the first day of the fiscal quarter in which the director serves in the indicated role. No adjustment will be made nor any repayment due in the event that a director does not serve in the indicated role for the remainder of the quarter. Retainers are in lieu of meeting fees.


Equity Compensation:


Each non-employee director then serving on the Board will be granted on the first business day of March a restricted stock unit award having a value equal to $150,000 based on the closing price per share of the Company’s common stock two business days before the grant date. The award will be granted pursuant to the Company's 2013 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). The award vests in full on the first anniversary of the grant date, provided that the director is serving as a member of the Board of Directors or as an employee or Consultant of the Company or an Affiliate under the Plan on the date of vesting. The awards will be awarded only if approved by the Compensation Committee on or before the grant date. Awards will be made pursuant to the applicable form of Restricted Stock Unit Grant Notice and Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement as approved by the Compensation Committee from time to time.  If there is a Change in Control, as defined in the Plan, and if the director’s service with the Company as a director is terminated in connection with the Change in Control, any unvested awards will vest in full on the termination date.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

RE:  NEXSTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. REGISTRATIONS:
    On Form S-8 (File No. 33-80938)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 33-97206)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 333-34515)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 33-88074)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 333-07887)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 333-07889)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 33-90994)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 333-00758)
    and Form S-8 (File No. 333-35827)

Gentlemen:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the above referenced
registration statements of our report dated January 7, 1999, except for Note 13,
for which the date is March 1, 1999, on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Proligo LLC as of November 30, 1998 and for the period from August
15, 1998 through November 30, 1998 which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the
caption "Selected Financial Data."

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado
June 22, 1999
#### Rahm’s Estate

(No. 2).

Argued Oct. 30, 1907.

Appeal, No. 73, Oct. T., 1907, by Edward Rahm, from decree of O. C. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1905, No. 236, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in Estate of Virginia Rahm, deceased.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appellant claimed that the surcharge of the guardian should have been larger. See preceding case.

November 14, 1907:

Per Curiam,

Appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by appellant.
#### Paul McKee v. State.

No. 25403.

October 24, 1951.

Hon. Ozroe Bush, Judge Presiding.

*Richard E. McDaniel,*Joaquin, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Paul McKee was convicted in the Justice Court of Precinct No. 1, of Shelby County, for the offense of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway at a rate of speed in excess of the legal speed limit, and his punishment was assessed at a' fine of $50.

He appealed to the county court where the state’s motion to dismiss the appeal because of a defective appeal bond was granted.

Appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal and sought to amend the bond by filing a new bond, claiming his right to do so under the provisions of Art. 835, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

In the instant proceeding, he attempts to appeal from the order of the county court refusing to permit the filing of an amended bond and reinstate the appeal.

The relief to which appellant appears to be entitled is one *400appropriate to a mandamus proceeding in a proper court to require the county judge to permit the amendment of the bond.

This court’s jurisdiction in appeals in causes originating in the justice court is limited to convictions where the fine assessed in the county court exceeds $100. See Art. 53, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

The power of this court and the judges thereof in mandamus proceedings is confined to the issuance of such writs where deemed necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this court. See Art. 53a, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

We are without jurisdiction to enter any order herein other than to dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.11.1

                             AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
                          and Trust Company of Chicago
        2000 South Naperville Road/Wheaton, Illinois 60187/(630) 221-2100







June 17, 1997



Peter A. Nicholson
Vice President/CFO
Total Control Products, Inc.
2001 North Janice
Melrose Park, Illinois 60160

RE:  COVENANT ELIMINATIONS - LIBOR RATE REDUCTION

Dear Peter,

Please be advised that the bank has eliminated the cash flow and acquisition
covenant from your loan and security agreement.  In addition, we have agreed to
lower the borrowing rate at the LIBOR option from 200 to 150 basis points above
the corresponding LIBOR term.  Also, financial statements will be required on a
quarterly rather than monthly basis.

Should you have any questions or concerns in regards to this matter, please
contact me directly at 630-221-2116.

Very truly yours,


/s/ William J. Robertson
William J. Robertson
Vice President
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 6, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00886-CV 

TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS DALLAS, INC., Appellant 

V. 

NORTH TEXAS MEDICAL GROUP, P.A, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 05-06727-L 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

We reinstate this appeal. This case was abated in 2013 due to bankruptcy. See 

TEX.R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public 

Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which shows the bankruptcy 

case associated with this appeal was discharged on April 24, 2019, effectively 

dissolving the automatic stay. 

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status 

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would 

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c). To 

date, neither party has responded. 
 –2– 

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

120886F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TENET HEALTHSYSTEM 

HOSPITALS DALLAS, INC., 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-00886-CV V. 

NORTH TEXAS MEDICAL 

GROUP, P.A, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 05-06727-L. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Schenck and 

Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered May 6, 2021
EXHIBIT 15.  LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
  of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
Santa Rosa, California

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the unaudited interim financial
information of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
periods ended January 31, 1998 and 1997 as indicated in our report dated
February 18, 1998.  Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 1998, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-41050,
No. 33-26271, No. 33-12276, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132, No. 33-60891 and
No. 333-13013 on Forms S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-61177 and
No. 33-65319 on Form S-3.

We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Jose, California

March 17, 1998
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

April 17, 2019

Order 

Clerk

April 17, 2019

159054-5(79)

PAMELA L. TREES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159054

v COA: 338297

Macomb CC: 2015-003623-NP

PFIZER, INC., PFIZER INTERNATIONAL,

LLC, GREENSTONE, LLC, formerly known as

GREENSTONE LIMITED, and MEIJER INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________

CAROL BEARUP, BARBARA BEECHAM,

SONYA MENCY, VIOLA MOSES, and

HEATHER MACKS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 159055

v COA: 340191

Wayne CC: 15-013604-NP

PFIZER, INC., PFIZER INTERNATIONAL,

LLC, GREENSTONE, LLC, formerly known as

GREENSTONE LIMITED, MEIJER, INC.,

and CVS CAREMARK,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

WAL-MART STORES, INC. doing business as

SAM’S CLUB also known as SAM’S EAST, INC.,

and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee CVS Caremark to 

extend the time for filing its answer to the application for leave to appeal in No. 159055 is 

GRANTED. The answer submitted on April 11, 2019, is accepted as timely filed.
#### John Donovan, Respondent, v. Edward H. Harriman, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
imax-ex1037_91.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.37

THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Third Amendment”) dated as of December 5, 2019 is entered into by and between IMAX CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of Canada (the “Company”), and PATRICK MCCLYMONT (the “Executive”).

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend that certain Employment Agreement between them dated as of June 6, 2016, as previously amended by an Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of August 2, 2019 and a Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of October 21, 2019 (collectively, the “Agreement”), as hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.Term.  Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the following:  

“The Executive’s employment pursuant to this Agreement shall be effective as of August 8, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), and shall terminate upon the earlier to occur of (i) the Executive’s termination of employment pursuant to Section 4 hereunder and (ii) January 8, 2020 (the “End Date”).”

2.No Further Changes. Except with respect to the change made by Section 1 above, all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

3.Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed by either of the parties hereto in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this Third Amendment as of December 5, 2019.

 


	
IMAX CORPORATION
	
 
	
PATRICK MCCLYMONT

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Kenneth Weissman
	
 
	
/s/ Patrick McClymont

	
Name:
	
Kenneth Weissman
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
Senior Vice President, Legal 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Affairs and Corporate Secretary
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Robert D. Lister
	
 
	
 

	
Name:
	
Robert D. Lister
	
 
	
 

	
Title:
	
Chief Legal Officer and Senior
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Executive Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Nazario, Appellant.

[679 NYS2d 362]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered January 13, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4V2 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was sentenced without the benefit of a pre-sentence report, as required by CPL 390.20 (1), is based solely on the absence of any reference to this report in the record. Such absence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity accorded to judicial proceedings *(People v Kalakowski,*120 AD2d 763, *lv denied*68 NY2d 669). A presentence report was ordered by the court and prepared by the Department of Probation prior to the sentencing date, and it is presumed that defendant was lawfully sentenced on the basis of this report *(People v Martinez,*237 AD2d 122, *lv denied*90 NY2d 860). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 618 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 48
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 618

                          [Report No. 104-104]

   To extend the authorization for appropriations for the Commodity 
          Futures Trading Commission through fiscal year 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mr. de la Garza, Mr. Ewing, and Mr. Rose) 
 (all by request) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                      the Committee on Agriculture

                             April 6, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the authorization for appropriations for the Commodity 
          Futures Trading Commission through fiscal year 2000.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be 
cited as the ``Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 12(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 16(d)) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995 through 2000.''.
                                     

                                                  Union Calendar No. 48

104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 618

                          [Report No. 104-104]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To extend the authorization for appropriations for the Commodity 
          Futures Trading Commission through fiscal year 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 6, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### The People of the State of New York v. Lincoln Spring Company. The People of the State of New York v. Geysers Natural Carbonic Gas Company. The People of the State of New York v. New York Carbonic Acid Gas Company.

Motion granted, unless the defendants, within ten days from service upon them of copy of this order, withdraw their demurrer and serve an answer, which they are hereby permitted to do, without costs, and unless with the answer they shall serve a stipulation that the case may he tried at the May Albany Trial Term without further notice, unless otherwise directed by the justice presiding at said term. In case said demurrer be withdrawn^ and answer served, together with the stipulation above mentioned, motion is denied. All concurred, except Kellogg, J., dissenting. Order to be settled by Chester, J.