alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
183 La. 412

#### STATE v. TRIPPETT.

No. 33678.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

*156Hugh M. Wilkinson, of New Orleans, and Emile A. Carmouche, of Jennings, for relator.

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

BRUNOT, Justice.

S. B. Trippett was charged with embezzlement. He was tried by a jury and found guilty of violating section 1 of Act No. 43 of 1912. Thereupon relator applied to this court for writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari. The court granted a writ of certiorari, and ordered the trial judge and the state to show cause on or before the 14th of October, 1935, why the relief prayed for by relator should not be granted.

The record has not been sent up, but the judge’s return is a seriatum and complete answer, in numerical order, to all of the articles of relator’s petition; and the return of the district attorney substantiates the judge’s statement that relator has not prepared and submitted a single bill of exceptions for signature and comment thereon. It is shown, and admitted, that relator promptly excepted to rulings of the court, at various stages of the trial, and to the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and that his exceptions to the rulings of the court, and his reservation of bills of exception thereto, were noted in the court minutes; but it is also shown that he did not prepare the bills of exception he had reserved to the court’s rulings, nor did he apply to the court for additional time in which to do so, until after the appeal had been granted, and the court had thereby lost jurisdiction of the case. It is shown that rule 11 of the Fourteenth judicial district court, reads as follows :

> “All bills of exception shall be submitted to opposing counsel and to the Court for examination and signature not later than the following day after they ar.e reserved, unless the Court shall grant further time, to be shown by entry on the minute book.”

It is shown that Rule 11 has been consistently enforced in respondent’s court for many years by Judge OVERTON, respondent, and by Judge PICKEREL since his ascension to the bench.

The prayer of relator is rather badly mixed. It is clear that he prays for a mandamus, commanding the respondent judge to sign and return in this court certain bills of exception which, it is alleged in the prayer, are attached to relator’s motion for a new trial, and to his application to this court for writs, but which are not attached to either, and which the record shows have not yet been prepared.

We think it a waste of time to consider .this application further.

The writ and order issued herein are recalled and vacated, and relator’s application is denied.
<table>

                                                                         EXHIBIT 12.1
                              PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in millions)
<caption>

                                                                                       Six
                                                                                    months
                                                                                     ended
                                                                                   June 30,
                                1997       1998       1999       2000       2001      2002
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------  ---------

                          <c>        <c>        <c>        <c>        <c>        <c>
Fixed Charges:

Interest                        $ 91       $ 84       $ 82       $ 72       $ 88       $ 31
Interest portion of
  annual rentals                  12         11          3          4          3          1
Preferred dividends
  of subsidiaries (1)             13          2          2          2          2          2
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   --------  ---------
Total Fixed Charges
  for Purpose of Ratio          $116       $ 97       $ 87       $ 78       $ 93       $ 34
                            ========   ========   ========   ========   ========  =========

Earnings:

Pretax income from
  continuing operations         $335       $274       $350       $396      $377        $195
Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                   116         97         87         78        93          34
                            --------   --------   --------   --------   -------   ---------
Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio              $451       $371       $437       $474      $470        $229
                            ========   ========   ========   ========   =======  ==========
Ratio of Earnings
  to Fixed Charges              3.89       3.82       5.02       6.08      5.05        6.74
                            ========   ========   ========   ========   =======  ==========

(1)	In computing this ratio, "Preferred dividends of subsidiaries" represents the
before-tax earnings necessary to pay such dividends, computed at the effective tax
rates for the applicable periods.

</table>
#### William L. Bogan v. State.

No. 24904.

May 31, 1950.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for a felony, the punishment five years in the penitentiary.

The record contains notice of appeal to this court, and what in form purports to be a recognizance entered into in open court, but which is designated a bond. It is approved by the trial judge, but not by the sheriff. It shows to have been entered into after the term during which the appeal was taken had ad-adjourned.

The term having expired, an appeal bond approved by the sheriff, as well as the judge, is required in order to authorize consideration of the appeal by this court. See Art. 818, C.C.P.; Morales v. State, 130 Tex. Cr. R. 109, 91 S.W. 2d 1066; McCoy v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 309, 162 S.W. 2d 976.

An appeal bond is required to be given in the sum fixed by the court. We fail to find in this record where the amount of bail was fixed by the trial court.

For want of sufficient bond, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 24     **POWER OF    ATTORNEY**     The undersigned directors of Gardner Denver, Inc., a Delaware    corporation (the “Company”), which anticipates filing    with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the    “Commission”) under the provisions of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) an Annual Report on    Form 10-K    (the “Annual Report”) for the fiscal year ended    December 31, 2007 (together with any and all subsequent    amendments) does hereby constitutes and appoints Barry L.    Pennypacker and Tracy D. Pagliara, and each of them, with full    power of substitution and resubstitution, as attorney or    attorneys to execute and file on behalf of the undersigned, in    their capacity as a director of the Company, the Annual Report    and any and all other documents to be filed with the Commission    pertaining to the Annual Report with full power and authority to    do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever required    or necessary to be done in the premises, as fully as to all    intents and purposes as he could do if personally present,    hereby ratifying and approving the acts of said attorneys and    any of them and any such substitution.     Dated: February 19, 2008      **Signature** **Title**    /s/  Donald    G. Barger, Jr.
#### Joseph L. Audino, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Board of Appeals of the City of Chicago, B. Emmet Hartnett, et al. as Members of the Board of Appeals of the City of Chicago, John P. Maloney, Zoning Administrator of the City of Chicago, Sidney D. Smith, Commissioner of Buildings of the City of Chicago, and the City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 50,797.

First District, Second Division.

October 4, 1966.

Raymond F. Simon, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Sydney R. Drebin and Ronald S. Cope, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellant; Charles C. Poreelli, of Chicago, for appellee.

Opinion by

MR. JUSTICE LYONS.

Not to be published in ML
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose A. LUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50429.

D.C. No. CR-02-00387-MLR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose A. Luna appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

Luna contends that the district court erred in applying an upward adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 for the use of a minor to commit a crime, without making any specific findings during the sentencing hearing as to its application. We review de novo, *United States v. Houston,*217 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir.2000), and we conclude that the district court erred by not making specific findings resolving Luna’s objection to this upward adjust*229ment. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1) (requiring that the court “must rule on any unresolved objections to the presentence report ... [and] for each matter controverted, the court must make either a finding on the allegation or a determination that no finding is necessary”); *Houston,*217 F.3d at 1207-09 (requiring “strict compliance ■with Rule 32”).

Accordingly, we vacate Luna’s sentence and remand for further fact finding and resentencing. *United States v. Levya-Franco,*311 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (vacating and remanding for resentencing where the sentencing court failed to resolve a disputed issue as required under Rule 32(c)(1)).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I,
C. Kenneth Love, the Principal Executive Officer of Kimball Hill, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that based on my knowledge the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission: (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained
in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/C. KENNETH LOVEC. Kenneth Love President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
January 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### John Clinton, Respondent, v. Munson Steamship Line, Appellant.

Judgment and orders reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, for error of *the*court in refusing to charge the defendant’s request that if defendant furnished a proper and sufficient cover for the hole and it was taken and left off the hole by the neglect of the coemployees of the plaintiff, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### Eastman Machine Company, Appellant, v. Henry Sonneborn and Others, Respondents.

Order modified and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concurred.
Exhibit 10.6

nStor Corporation, Inc.

July 31, 2004

H. Irwin Levy1601 Forum PlaceSuite 500West Palm Beach, Florida 33417

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain 10% Convertible Subordinated Promissory Note, dated June 14, 2002, in the amount of $650,000, as amended on June 30, 2003 increasing the outstanding principal of theNote to $818,370, as amended on December 31, 2003 increasing the outstanding principal of the Note to $859,625, as amended on April 30, 2004 increasing the outstanding principal of the Note to $888,122, with a maturity date of July 31, 2004 (the “AmendedNote”), payable by nStor Corporation, Inc. to H. Irwin Levy, copies of which are attached hereto. 

1)         The maturity date of the Amended Note is hereby extended from July 31, 2004 to October 31, 2004 (“Maturity”).

2)         Accrued and unpaid interest on the Amended Note through July 31, 2004 in the amount of $22,343 is hereby added to the $888,122 principal amount of the Amended Note so that asof the date hereof, the principal amount of the Amended Note has been increased to $910,465 (the “New principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable atMaturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

/s/ JackJaiven                                                                         Agreed By: /s/ H. Irwin LevyJackJaiven                                                                              H. Irwin LevyVice President and Treasurer

JJ/tw

**1601 Forum Place * Suite 500 * West Palm Beach * Florida * 33401(561) 640-3105 * fax (561) 640-3160**
Exhibit
23.1


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-135777) pertaining to the Houston Wire & Cable Company 2000
Stock Plan and the Houston Wire & Cable Company 2006 Stock Plan of our
reports dated February 27, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Houston Wire & Cable Company and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Houston Wire & Cable Company, included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2007.





/s/
      Ernst & Young LLP








Houston,
Texas


March 13,
2008
June 4, 2008

The Board of Directors

GCI, Inc. and Subsidiaries:

We have been furnished with a copy of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GCI, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008, and have read the Company's statements contained in Note 1(h) to the interim consolidated financial statements included therein. As stated in Note 1(h), the Company changed its method of accounting for recording depreciation in the year property and equipment is placed in service from the half-year convention to the mid-month convention. The Company states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because it more precisely recognizes depreciation expense over the estimated useful life of the asset. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2007, nor have we audited the information set forth in the aforementioned Note 1(h) to the interim consolidated financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an opinion concerning the factual information contained therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) KPMG LLP

Anchorage, Alaska
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60098

FELICIEN CYUBAHIRO, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A71-771-673

-------------------- March 7, 2002 Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Felicien Cyubahiro petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that Cyubahiro’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of United States v. Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Cyubahiro has not replied to the respondent’s motion to remand.No. 01-60098 -2- Cyubahiro’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d at 927. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49230-49231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19285]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


 Notice of Applications for Certificates

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending August 8, 2008. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2008-0240.
    Date Filed: August 5, 2008.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: August 26, 2008.
    Description: Application of Air Dominicana S.A. requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit and exemption authority to engage in (i) 
charter foreign air transportation of persons and property between 
points in the Dominican Republic and points in the United States

[[Page 49231]]

and beyond, with or without stopovers, and (ii) Fifth Freedom charter 
service pursuant to the prior approval requirements.

Renee V. Wright,
 Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E8-19285 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

Chiasma, Inc. 
 140 Kendrick
Street 
 Building C East 

Needham, MA 02494 
 February 14, 2020 

Raj Kannan 
 Re: Amendment to Executive Employment Letter 

Dear Raj: 
 This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to
the Executive Employment Letter dated May 31, 2019 (the “Agreement”) confirms the amended terms and conditions of your employment with Chiasma, Inc. (the “Company”) effective February 14, 2020. Except as
expressly amended herein, the Agreement remains in full effect. Your Employee Confidentiality, Assignment and Noncompetition Agreement with the Company dated May 31, 2019 is unaltered and unamended by this Amendment and remains in full effect.

 Section 8(e) of the Agreement is hereby amended by: 
  

	 	1.	 Adding, after the phrase “the year in which the Change in Control occurs,” the words “(b-i) your
accrued bonus (if any) with respect to the calendar year in which the Date of Termination occurs, subject to the Board’s assessment of applicable bonus criteria and prorated from the beginning of such year to the Date of Termination”; and



  

	 	2.	 Adding, after the words “(a) and (b),” the words “and (b-i)” 



This Amendment constitutes the complete agreement between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any prior agreements,
representations or understandings (whether written, oral or implied) between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter herein. 
 Please
acknowledge, by signing below, that you have accepted this Amendment. 
  

					
	Very Truly Yours,	 		 	
			
	/s/ David Stack	 		 	  

	 David Stack
 Chairman of the Board of
Directors
 Chiasma, Inc.
	 		 	

  

					
	I have read and accept this Amendment:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Raj Kannan	 		 	02/18/2020
	Raj Kannan	 		 	Date
<PAGE>


                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      OF

                   THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                          OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION

                Pursuant to Sections 228 and 242 of the General
                   Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

                                   * * * * *


     Outboard Marine Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

     FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted a resolution
proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation:

          RESOLVED, that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation be amended by
          changing the fourth Article thereof so that, as amended, such Article
          shall be and read as follows:

          "FOURTH:  The total number of all classes of stock which the
          Corporation shall have authority to issue is 43,500,000 shares,
          consisting of:

          (a)  1,500,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share;
               and

          (b)  42,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share."

     SECOND: That in lieu of a meeting of stockholders, the stockholders of the
Corporation have duly adopted the amendment by unanimous written consent in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the state of Delaware.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION has caused this certificate
to be duly executed in its corporate name as of this 19th day of July, 2000.


                         OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION



                         By: /s/ Eric T. Martinez
                             ---------------------
                             Name:  Eric T. Martinez
                             Title: Sr. Vice President, Finance and Treasurer




                                       2
#### Frank J. DICOSTANZO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

No. 03-3173.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: July 29, 2003.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).