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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD DUANE DIEBEL, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-13741 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER HOLDING MARCH 19, 2010 SHOW CAUSE ORDER (# 3)

IN ABEYANCE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE THROUGH APRIL 13, 2010

Plaintiff Attorney Ronald Diebel, appearing pro se, was ordered on March 19, 2010,

to show cause by March 30, 2010, why his September 22, 2009 Complaint should not be

dismissed for lack of prosecution in that defendant Detroit Board of Education has not been

shown to have been served within 120 days from the filing of the Complaint. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). Service was due by January 22, 2010. In his timely response, Diebel

misstates that he filed the Complaint on December 22, 2009, and asks the court for

permission to now serve the defendant. Diebel maintains that he has delayed service

because he is a member of his Union's negotiating team with his employer, the defendant

Detroit Board of Education, and that he did not want to create disharmony in those

negotiations by serving his Complaint earlier.

Although plaintiff Diebel has taken an unreasonable amount of time to attempt

service, Diebel has offered to take immediate action in response to this court's March 19,

2010, show cause order. The court finds that Diebel has shown good cause for a 14-day

extension to serve defendant Detroit Board of Education. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Accordingly,
2

The court's March 19, 2010, Order to Show Cause is hereby held in ABEYANCE to

the extent plaintiff Diebel is hereby ORDERED to serve defendant Detroit Board of

Education with process on or before April 13, 2010. Plaintiff Diebel's failure to file a proof

of service with the court on or before April 13, 2010, demonstrating that defendant Detroit

Board of Education was properly served on or before April 13, 2010, will result in the

dismissal of this lawsuit for lack of prosecution. Timely filing of a proof of service, and

timely service, will result in the dismissal of the March 19, 2010, Order to Show Cause,

without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 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

March 30, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                        13550000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4061000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   71012000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              91582000
<PP&E>                                         1036000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  316000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                91582000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         70920000
<BONDS>                                       29075000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  91582000
<SALES>                                      132518000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             132518000
<CGS>                                        112278000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                134330000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (551000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (6635000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (7896000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (7896000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (7896000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                1634000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (6262000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.59


December 3, 2019
Valaris plc
Attn: Michael T. McGuinty
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
6 Chesterfield Gardens
London, England W1J 5BQ


Re:    Voluntary Reduction of Base Salary effective as of January 1, 2020 


Dear Michael,
I refer to Section 2(a) of my October 7, 2018 Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with ENSCO Global Resources Limited and Ensco plc, now known as Valaris plc (“Valaris”), which provides that during the term of the Employment Agreement, “[I] shall receive a base salary pursuant to [the] Agreement at an annual rate equal to $950,000 per annum” and that “the Base Salary may not be reduced without [my] express consent.”
By this letter, I hereby request and expressly consent to a 10% reduction of my Base Salary, which reduction shall result in my Base Salary being $855,000 per annum commencing effective as of January 1, 2020. I expressly acknowledge and agree that this reduction of my Base Salary will result in a corresponding reduction to: (i) my Annual Bonus opportunity under Section 2(b) of the Employment Agreement; (ii) my Annual Equity Award under Section 2(d) of the Employment Agreement; and (iii) my severance entitlements under Section 4(b) of the Employment Agreement.
By this letter, I hereby voluntarily and expressly waive any rights to claim “Good Reason,” “constructive termination” or any similar concept as a result of this reduction to my Base Salary under the common law, the Employment Agreement, my Change in Control Agreement entered into with Rowan Companies, Inc. effective as of April 25, 2014, and all equity award agreements that I have entered into with Valaris plc (or its predecessors).
Except as expressly set forth herein, no other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall be modified by this letter and the Employment Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
Sincerely,


Dr. Thomas Burke
179 La. 31

#### Mrs. Stella W. SINGLUST, J. C. Powell (Assignee), v. Chester R. BOSTWICK et ux.

No. 32570.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1934.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1934.

Frank A. Blanchard, of Shreveport, for appellants.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appel-lee J. C. Powell.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage via ordinaria. The defendants have intervened claiming a homestead on part of the property sought' to be foreclosed on.

The mortgage was given February 22,1916, and the only question involved is one of fact, to wit, whether at the time the mortgage was given the defendants resided on the property mortgaged.

*11The evidence is conflicting. The intervener and his wife and two relatives of hers testify that the intervener and his wife moved on the property in October, 1915, and have continued to reside there ever since. Plaintiff and his hrother-in-law, and two disinterested witnesses, testify that the interveners did not reside on the property at any time during 1915 and 1916, that same was then occupied by one* Bradley as a tenant of interveners who moved on the property only after their said tenant moved off of it.

The trial judge found the facts to he with the plaintiff and against the interveners and we find no manifest error in his conclusion which appears to he in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence and with the declaration made by the mortgagor in the mortgage itself, at a time unsuspicious and when the facts were fresh in the minds of the parties, that the property was not then and had not at any time been occupied by him as a homestead (tr. 13).

Our conclusion is that the finding of the trial judge was correct.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent. .
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 704

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to authorize donation of surplus Federal law enforcement canines to

their handlers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to authorize donation of surplus Federal

law enforcement canines to their handlers.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO DONATE SURPLUS LAW

4 ENFORCEMENT CANINES TO THEIR HAN5 DLERS.

6 Section 203 of the Federal Property and Administra7 tive Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) is amended by

8 adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 704 IH

1 ‘‘(r) The head of a Federal agency having control of

2 a canine that has been used by a Federal agency in the

3 performance of law enforcement duties and that has been

4 determined to be surplus property may donate the canine

5 to an individual who was responsible for handling the ca6 nine in the performance of those duties.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

 

**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 GCI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald A. Duncan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, except that, as described in the Report, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm has not completed its review of the financial statements as required by Rule 10-01(d) of Regulation S-X (see Note 1 of the Notes to Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Report); and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  November 13, 2006 | /s/ Ronald A. Duncan    |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Ronald A. Duncan        |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |
|                     | GCI, Inc.               |

 

 

 

1
Hon. R. H. Cory, Chairman, Opinion No. M-70 

State Affairs Committee 

House of Representatives Re: Constltutlonallty of 

Austin, Texas H.B. 1187, 60th 

Legislature, Regular 

Bear Representative Gory: Session, 1967. 

You ask the opinion of this office as to whether 

House Bill Number 1187, now pending In the 60th Legislature, 

Regular Session, 1967, is constitutional. 

This Bill, In creating appraisal service districts 

and boards for the appraisal and assessment of all real property and certain types of personal property for the purpose 

of taxation, entirely eliminates the County Tax Assessor and 

Collector from the performance of such duties and therefore 

conflicts with and Is antagonisticto Section 14 of Article 

VIII of the Texas Constitution, which provides: 

"Sec. 14. Except as provided in Section 16 

of this Article, there shall be elected by the 

qualified voters of each county, an Assessor and 

Collector of Taxes, who shall hold his office for 

four years and until his successor is elected and 

qualified; and such Assessor and Collector of Texes 

shall perform all the duties with respect to assessing property for the purpose of taxation and 

of collecting taxes, as may be prescribed by the 

Legislature:' As amended Nov. 8, 1932; Nov. 2, 1954. 

Since the Constitution provides that the County Tax 

Assessor and Collector "shall perform all the duties with 

respect to assessing property for the purpose of taxation", 

and this necessarily includes the duty of appraisal which la 

the setting of the valuation of taxable property for the 

purpose of taxation, it Is evident that House Bill 1187 is 

In violation of Section 14 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution. 

- 320 - 
Hon. R. H. Gory, page 2 (M- 70) 

The appraisal to be made by the Appraisal Service 

Dlstrlct Board as provided in the Act Is not advisory to the 

Tax Assessor and Collector as the Act specifically provides 

in Section 5(b) that the appraisal made by such Board "shall 

be used by all taxing &rlsdfctlons within the county'.- 

-(Emphasis added) 

It appears that other sections of this bill also 

violate other provisions of Article VIII which would render 

It unconstitutional; however, since the bill clearly violates 

Sec. 14 of Art. VIII, there is no necessity for discussing 

these various provisions. 

SUMMARY 

------- 

House Bill 1187, 60th Legislature of Texas, Regular Session, 1967, IS unconstitutional. It violates 

Section 14 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution 

as well as other Sections of said Article VIII. 

YjaGrs very truly, 

Prepared by: W. E. Allen and William J. Craig 

Assistant Attorneys General 

APPROVED; 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman 

V. C. Taylor 

Kerns B. Taylor 

Nell Wllllams 

Arthur Sandlln 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A, J. Carubbl, Jr. 

- 321 -
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21
                                 SUBSIDIARIES
                                 ------------

               Entity                                           Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------             ------------
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.                             Delaware
    Sentry Protective Alarms, Inc. (CA)                           California
    Network MultiFamily Security Corporation                      Delaware
    Protection One Alarm Monitoring of Mass., Inc.                Delaware
    Security Monitoring Services, Inc.                            Florida
    ComSec Narragansett Security, Inc.                            Delaware
      ComSec Systems, Inc.                                        Delaware
      ComSec Systems of Eastern Mass., Inc.                       Delaware
      ComSec Systems of Mass., Inc.                               Delaware 
Protection One International, Inc.                                Delaware
    Protection One Canada, Inc.                                   Ontario
      Canguard, Inc.                                              Ontario
    Protection One France, EURL                                   France
      Compagnie Europeenne de Telesecurite                        France
          Actar                                                   France
              Aldus                                               France
              Surveillance Electronique de France                 France
          CET Benelux, S.A.                                       Belgium 
          CET Swisse                                              Switzerland
          CET Technishe Sicherheirsdienste GbmH                   Germany
          Croise Laroch                                           France
              E.S. Beveiliging                                    Belgium
          Eurocontact                                             France
          Europ Telesecurite                                      France
          France Reseau Telesecurite                              France
    Protection One U.K., Inc.                                     United Kingdom
Protection One Investments, Inc.                                  Delaware
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Years Ended September 30,
                                                     --------------------------
                                                       1995     1996     1997
                                                     -------- -------- --------
                                                       (Amounts in thousands,
                                                       except per share data)
<S>                                                  <C>      <C>      <C>
PRIMARY
  Average shares outstanding                            5,561    5,691    5,823
  Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on the
   treasury stock method using average market price       280      174       90
                                                     -------- -------- --------
    Total                                               5,841    5,865    5,913
                                                     ======== ======== ========
  Net income                                         $  3,796 $    707 $      5
                                                     ======== ======== ========
  Per share amount                                   $   0.65 $   0.12 $   0.00
                                                     ======== ======== ========
FULLY DILUTED
  Average shares outstanding                            5,561    5,691    5,823
  Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on the
   treasury stock method using the year-end market
   price, if higher than the average market price         280      174       92
                                                     -------- -------- --------
    Total                                               5,841    5,865    5,915
                                                     ======== ======== ========
  Net income                                         $  3,796 $    707 $      5
                                                     ======== ======== ========
  Per share amount                                   $   0.65 $   0.12 $   0.00
                                                     ======== ======== ========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                       351
<INVENTORY>                                     34,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,134
<PP&E>                                          14,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,802)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,244
<SALES>                                         71,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,660
<CGS>                                           60,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                       403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                730
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       730
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Green Planet Bioengineering Co. Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mr. Min Zhao, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.






Date: November 10, 2010
By:
/s/ Min ZhaoMin Zhao

Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal

Financial Officer)
#### Salvador Davila v. State.

No. 25097.

February 14, 1951.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) April 11,1951.

*F. G. Garza,*Rio Grande City, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary.

When this case was submitted our attention was called to the failure of the district clerk to note the filing date of the statement of facts. Permission was given to appellant’s counsel to secure a certificate from the clerk showing the filing date. We have withheld our opinion for such certificate.

An examination of the record shows that notice of appeal was given in this case on February 23, 1950. At that time the court entered an order granting ninety days to file bills of exception and statement of facts. This is all the time the district judge has power to grant. It is noted, however, that on May 19th he granted thirty days additional time, from and after May 24th. On June 20th he granted an extension to July 24th. On July 23rd he extended the time to August 24th. On August 24th an order was entered extending the time to September 20th.

*600The transcript shows the filing date of the bills of exception to be September 20, 1950. The reporter’s certificate to the statement of facts is dated September 1, 1950, while the attorneys and the judge entered their approval on the 20th day of September, 1950. It is immaterial that the district clerk did not place his filing date on the statement of facts because he had no authority to file same after the ninety days originally allowed from February 23rd.

In the state of the record we cannot consider the statement of facts or bills of exception and the record, as it comes to us, presents nothing for our review. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.