alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. BOLOGNA & COMPANY, Inc., v. Mrs. Leonora BENTIGENGNA.

No. 1957.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 22, 1939.

Ben N. Tucker, of Hammond, and Yar-rut & Stich, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Wm. A. Houghton, of Independence, for appellee. ■

DORE, Judge.

It is agreed by the parties litigant and their counsel that the facts and issues in this case are similar to those in the case of A. Bologna & Co., Inc., v. Guiseppe Arcardo, 187 So. 290, which we have this day decided, and that the decision in the latter case is controlling herein.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the case of A. Bologna & Co., Inc., v. Guiseppe Arcardo, the judgment of the District Court in the instant case is affirmed.
Exhibit










Exhibit 10.38


FIRST Amendment to Employment Agreement




This First Amendment (“Amendment”) to the March 18, 2013 Employment Agreement, effective March 18, 2013 (“Employment Agreement”), between Stephen Spengler (the “Executive”) and Intelsat Corporation is entered into by the undersigned parties and is effective as of April 18, 2013.


1.The second sentence of Section 4(d)(i) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as follows:
In the event of such termination or any termination of employment due to the Company’s nonrenewal pursuant to Section 1, in addition to the Accrued Compensation and Prior Year Bonus (which shall be based on actual performance results and paid on the date bonuses for the applicable prior year are paid to other senior executives of the Company), the Executive shall be entitled to receive severance pay in an aggregate amount equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the sum of (A) the Executive’s Base Salary plus (B) the Executive’s target Annual Bonus for the fiscal year in which such termination occurs (the “Severance Amount”), payable in a lump sum on the next regular payday that is at least 14 days following the Executive’s delivery of an effective, irrevocable release of claims pursuant to Section 4(d)(ii).
 2.    As amended and modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
3.    If there is any conflict between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of April 18, 2013.


INTELSAT CORPORATION




By: /s/ Michelle V. Bryan
     Michelle V. Bryan
     Executive Vice President, General Counsel 
                                and Chief Administrative Officer


 


THE EXECUTIVE 




/s/ Stephen Spengler
 Stephen Spengler
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              74
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    21343
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     440990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10729
<PP&E>                                         2677864
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1023082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2127918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           523135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        415434
<OTHER-SE>                                     1189349
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2127918
<SALES>                                         312301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                312301
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   301346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6218
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6218
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Structured
      Asset Securities Corporation II


745
      Seventh Avenue


New
      York,
      NewYork 10019





Re:
      The
      Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 13, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
      between Structured Asset Securities Corporation II as depositor (the
“Depositor”), LaSalle Bank National Association as trustee (the “Trustee”),
      Wachovia Bank, National Association as master servicer (the “Master Servicer”)
      and CWCapital Asset Management LLC as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”),
      relating to LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
      Certificates, Series 2006-C3.





I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.











Date: February
      1, 2007





LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee








/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
#### Thomas Clark, an Infant, by Annie Clark, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Wells, Fargo & Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order of the Munici*895pal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
#### Bothilda Palmland, Appellant, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. No opinion. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41708 

Summary Calendar

EFRAIN MALDONADO, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DANIEL DICKERSON, Correctional Officer; 

MARVIN OGLETREE, Correctional Officer; KEVIN BASS, 

Correctional Officer; JOHNNY THOMPSON, SR.,

Correctional Officer; STEPHEN FARMER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:02-CV-184

-----------------------------------------------------------

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Efrain Maldonado, Jr., Texas prisoner # 459751, appealsfrom the dismissal of his civilrights

claims asfrivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A asto defendants Dickerson, Thompson, Bass, and

Farmer and from the grant ofsummary judgment for Ogletree. We review dismissals under § 1915A
-2-

de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). We also review a district court’s

grant of summary judgment de novo. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992).

Maldonado argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Dickerson,

Thompson, Bass, and Farmer asfrivolous. The district court did not err in dismissing the excessiveuse-of-force claims against these defendants for lack of personal involvement in a constitutional

deprivation. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983). Maldonado failed to set

forth a nonfrivolous conspiracy claim. See Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1999).

Maldonado has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his failure-to-intervene claim. See

Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997); cf. Hale v. Townley, 45

F.3d 914, 919 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Maldono argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Ogletree on

his excessive-use-of-force claim. The undisputed facts support the district court’s determination that

the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline rather than maliciously

and sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). 

Maldonado has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion in the district court’s grant of a

protective order as to discovery. See Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 4, 2014

No. 04-14-00061-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.S.O., Child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01423

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. 

Accordingly, this court must dispose of this appeal no later than 180 days after the date the 

notice of appeal was filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6. The portion of the reporter’s record for this 

appeal to be prepared by Mr. David Zarate was due to be filed on January 27, 2014.

1

 Mr. Zarate 

has not responded to informal efforts by the clerk’s office seeking an update on the status of the 

filing of the record. It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Zarate file his portion of the reporter’s 

record in this court no later than ten days from the date of this order. FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE RECORD WILL BE DISFAVORED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 Delcine Benavides has filed the other portion of the reporter’s record.
No. *13,153.*

#### *V.*Schwan & Co., Ltd., vs. J. J. Forgey et als.

Syllabus.

Wnore the alleged error o£ the Court of Appeals Involves but a small amount, *the*complaining *party*should endeavor to have it rectified by motion for a new trial, or amendment of judgment, before applying to this court for a writ of review.

IN RE V. Schwan *& Go.,*Ltd., applying for *certiorari*or writ of review to the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, State of Louisiana.

*Andrew Thorpe*and *T. H. Thorpe*for Applicants.

Submitted April 8, 1899.

Opinion handed down April 11, 1899.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Nictiolls, O. J.

We do not think this case calls for the exercise of, the powers vested by Article 101 of the Constitution, in the Supreme Court, to have the judgment of the Court of Appeals reviewed. It. presents no exceptional features calling for action on our part.

The principal ground of complaint seems to be that portion of the judgment which dissolves plaintiffs injunction with damages. It is-claimed that there was no basis for damages, as the injunction was never made operative or enforced. Plaintiff made no attempt to have-this error (if error it was) rectified by an application for a new trial, or an amendment of judgment. This complaint involved only twenty-five dollars, and plaintiffs should, at least, have sought relief on rehearing.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 67

Byron Whetse l, Petitioner and Appellant

v. The State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20220351

Appeal from the District Court of Ransom County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jay A. Schmitz , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam. Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND , for petitioner and appellant.

Fallon M. Kelly, State’s Attorney, Lisbon, ND , for respondent and appellee.1 Whetsel v. State No. 20220351
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Byron Whetsel appeals from an order summarily dismissing his application for post

- conviction relief before an evidentiary hearing was held

. Whetsel applied for post

- conviction relief on August 4, 2022, approximately five years after being convicted of criminal charges . He argues his sentences

are un constitutional pursuant to the E ighth A mendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishme nt

. The district court dismissed his application finding that Whetsel did not satisfy any condition under N.D.C.C. § 29

- 32.1

- 01 (3) warranting consideration outside the statutory two

- year period for requesting relief , and that Whetsel did not provide adequa te evidentiary support for his claims to warrant a hearing. We conclude the district court properly dismissed Whetsel’s application under these circumstances. We summarily aff irm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6 ). See Atkins v. State , 2017 ND 290, ¶ 6, 904 N.W

. 2d 738 (finding summary denial of post

- conviction relief appropriate when the State moves for summary disposition, and a petitioner fails to provide some competent e vidence to support his claims).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 11077 Summary Calendar

CHARLES FRANKLIN WOODRUFF , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

BRYAN WALLS, Sheriff, Young County; TOMMY MARTIN, Captain of the Young County Sheriff's Department; B. J. COOK, Sergeant; NFN MOODY, Deputy; NFN DENNIS, Corporal; LINDA DOE, Deputy , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CV

- 71

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Charles Franklin Woodruff , now Texas prisoner # 01737452, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review the dismissal de novo. Rogers v. Boatright , 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED Mar ch 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-11077 Document: 00513913393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2017No. 15

- 11077

2 The district court is require d to dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Generally, however, the plaintiff is to be given “ notice of the perceived inadequacy of the complaint and an opportunity for the plai ntiff to respond

. ” Brown v. Taylor , 829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th Cir. 2016) . A lthough the district court issued questionnaires eliciting additional facts, Woodruff “ did not receive notice that his complaint might be inadequate, ” or “ an opportunity to amend it or argue against that characterization. ” Id. Woodruff’s brief indicates that he could have amended his complaint to allege more specific facts had he been informed of the inadequacies of his complaint and had an opportunity to respond. For the foregoing reasons, though we express no opinion on the merits of Woodruff’s complain t, we VACATE the district court’ s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and REMAND for further proceedings. Woodruff’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED without prejudice to
the filing of another motion for appointment of counsel in the district court. Case: 15-11077 Document: 00513913393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                            4431
<SECURITIES>                                       507
<RECEIVABLES>                                      383
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5930
<PP&E>                                            1465
<DEPRECIATION>                                     894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              166
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        6085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6501
<SALES>                                            668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   668
<CGS>                                              619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (5)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 860 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 860

  To terminate the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
                                Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 1995

  Mr. Dornan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To terminate the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health 
                                Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Office of Surgeon General 
Termination Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF OFFICE OF SURGEON GENERAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 
              SERVICE.

    With respect to the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public 
Health Service--
            (1) all authorities and personnel of the Office are 
        transferred to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the 
        Department of Health and Human Services;
            (2) all unobligated portions of budget authority allocated 
        for the Office are rescinded; and
            (3) the Office, and the position of such Surgeon General, 
        are terminated.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,555,210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,403,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,056,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,512,067
<PP&E>                                      10,786,348
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,141,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,337,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,925,428
<BONDS>                                      5,249,033
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,978,867
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,184,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,337,390
<SALES>                                      9,188,688
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,217,808
<CGS>                                        5,834,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,834,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             140,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                593,474
<INCOME-TAX>                                   232,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            361,474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   361,474
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

|                                     |   | State or other jurisdiction of incorporation |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Subsidiaries                             |   | or organization                                                  |
|                                     |   |                                                                  |
| InterActual      Technologies, Inc.      |   | California,      USA                                                  |
| Sonic      IP, Inc.                      |   | California,      USA                                                  |
| Sonic      Solutions International, Inc. |   | Delaware                                                              |
| MGI      Software Corp.                  |   | Canada                                                                |
| Live      Picture S.A.R.L.               |   | France                                                                |
| OLI      V R Corporation Ltd.            |   | Israel                                                                |
| Sonic      Solutions K. K.               |   | Japan                                                                 |
| Sonic      Solutions (Shanghai) Co., Ltd |   | PRC      (China)                                                      |
| SystemOK      AB                         |   | Sweden                                                                |
| Roxio      UK, Ltd.                      |   | United      Kingdom                                                   |
| Roxio      Singapore PTE Ltd.            |   | Singapore                                                             |

 

----