alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ALLEN v. MICHAUD et al. *

No. 4452.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 5, 1933.

J. W. Elder, of Ruston, for appellants.

Redmond & Thompson, of Monroe, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing granted July 15, 1933.

DREW', Judge.

This is a companion suit to Lorena Norris v. S. E. Michaud et al., 148 So. 493, this day decided by this court, and, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the lower court holding defendants liable for damages received by plaintiff is affirmed in 3⁄41 re; Spects, .except as to the amount of the award.

■ Miss Allen is a young woman twenty-three *496years of age. She was knocked unconscious and remained in that condition until she arrived at the sanitarium, several miles away. One tooth was knocked completely out and another penetrated into the sinus or antrim. Her lip was cut, and required two stitches to he taken in it. One arm was cut and required seven stitches. Her leg was cut, and required four stitches to be taken in it. There was a discharge from the sinus which continued until the tooth was extracted, when it healed. Four of plaintiff’s front teeth were loosened. She will yet have to have at least one of her :front teeth extracted, which had abscessed at the time of trial. She spent $00 for doctor’s bills, and has not had her teeth” attended to, other than treatment. It is necessary that she have some bridgework done, which will be an additional expense. The teeth will have to be replaced. Plaintiff suffered extreme pain for several weeks until the tooth was extracted from the sinus. For ten days after the accident it was impossible for the dentist to examine her teeth, due to the condition of her mouth, being sore and lacerated.

A young woman who loses three or four teeth and has others damaged by being loosened is serio.usly damaged, and, in Miss Allen’s case, it is shown there is still a slight scar near her lip and one on her arm that will remain through life. The lower court awarded her damages in the sum of $250, Which ,is not more than sufficient to pay her doctor’s' and future dental bills to replace these teeth, not taking into account the pain and suffering she endured through no fault of her own. We think the judgment is inadequate, and that it should be increased to $1,-ooo;

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be amended by increasing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff from $250' to $1,-000, and that it be further amended by substituting ás parties defendant Clay W. Beekner and S. Sanford Levy, receivers, ini the stead of and-for the Union Indemnity Company; and, as .amended, that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 17, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 17, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A0332. THE STATE v. JOSEPH ANDREW BAGWELL.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 10.11





FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN OF 

AVON PRODUCTS, INC. 


                 THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made to the Benefit Restoration Plan of AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (the "Company"). 


INTRODUCTION 


                 The Company maintains the Benefit Restoration Plan of Avon Products, Inc. (the "Plan") in order to provide retirement benefits that cannot be provided under the Avon Products, Inc. Personal Retirement
Account Plan due to tax law limitations and as a result of employee elections to defer compensation. The Company now wishes to amend the Plan to clarify that (i) a Plan benefit will be based on deferred compensation only to the extent that the
compensation would have been included if it had not been deferred and (ii) for highly compensated employees, compensation includes the amount of MIP bonus paid in the form of stock options or restricted stock plus any premium for superior
performance. 

 


AMENDMENT 


            NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows: 


                    Section 3.1(a) of the Benefit Restoration Plan of Avon Products, Inc. is hereby amended effective January 1, 2005 to read as follows: 

  
    
      
        "The amount of the Retirement Allowance that would be payable in the form of a single life annuity if (i) the limitations of Code Section 415 were not applicable, (ii) the annual compensation limitations under Code Section
          401(a)(17) were not applicable, (iii) the definition of compensation under the Retirement Plan included compensation electively deferred by the Member for the plan year (as defined in the Retirement Plan) to a deferred compensation plan or program
        maintained by the Company but only to the extent such compensation would have been included if it had not been deferred, and (iv) for highly compensated employees (as defined in Code Section 416), the definition of 

    

  


















  
    
      
        compensation under the Retirement Plan included the amount of the award for 2001 and later years under the Avon Products, Inc. Management Incentive Plan that is paid in the form of restricted stock or stock options, plus any
        premium for superior performance;" 

    

  

                    Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to the adoption of this Fourth Amendment. 




                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment to be executed on the date set forth below. 

	

		AVON PRODUCTS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 

		 	 
	

		By: 	/s/ Gilbert L. Klemann, II

	 	 	

	Date: January 26, 2005 	Title: 	Senior Vice President,

    General Counsel and Secretary 
	 
	 	




 






2
Exhibit 10.21


 


Exhibit A


 


AMENDMENT NO. 5


 


TO ADVANCED POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.


 


STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


 


The
ADVANCED POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC. Stock Option Plan (“Plan”) is amended to
increase the aggregate amount of Common Stock to be delivered upon the exercise
of all options granted under the Plan from 2,250,000 to 2,400,000.


 


 


APPROVED BY SHAREHOLDERS effective         MAY
4, 2004               .


 


 


	
   

  	
  /s/
  GREG HAUGEN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GREG
  HAUGEN, Secretary

  



 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO STOCK OPTION PLAN


 





















 


AMENDMENT NO. 4


 


TO
ADVANCED POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.


 


STOCK
OPTION PLAN


 


 


The ADVANCED POWER
TECHNOLOGY, INC. Stock Option Plan (“Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.                                       5.7 Termination of
Relationship.


 


The
second full paragraph of Section 5.7 is hereby amended and completely restated
as follows:


 


“If an Optionee is
terminated for cause, any option granted hereunder shall terminate as of the
first discovery of the Company of any reason for termination for cause, and
such Optionee shall thereupon have no right to purchase any shares pursuant to
such option. “Termination for cause” shall mean dismissal for dishonesty,
conviction or confession of a crime punishable by law (except minor
violations), fraud, disclosure of confidential information, or misconduct,
including but not limited to, violation of the Company’s drug and alcohol
policy and any other Company policies in effect from time to time. If an
Optionee’s relationship with the Company or any related corporation is
suspended pending an investigation of whether or not the Optionee shall be
terminated for cause, all Optionee’s rights under any option granted hereunder
likewise shall be suspended during the period of investigation.”


 


2.                                        Except as amended herein and by Amendment
Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ON JANUARY 30th, 2003.


 


 


	
   

  	
  /s/
  GREG HAUGEN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GREG
  HAUGEN, Secretary

  



 


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO STOCK OPTION PLAN


 





















 


AMENDMENT NO. 3


TO
ADVANCED POWER TECHNOLOGY, Inc.


 


STOCK
OPTION PLAN


 


 


The ADVANCED POWER TECHNOLOGY,
INC. Stock Option Plan (“Plan) is amended to increase the aggregate amount of
Common Stock to be delivered upon the exercise of all options granted under the
Plan from 1,500,000 to 2,250,000.


 


ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS effective   DECEMBER 31, 2001.


 


APPROVED BY SHAREHOLDERS
effective   APRIL 26, 2002.


 


 


	
   

  	
  /s/
  GREG HAUGEN

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GREG
  HAUGEN, Secretary

  



 


 


AMENDMENT
NO.3 TO STOCK OPTION PLAN
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4 comprising part of the Registration Statement (No. 333-130961-04) of our report dated March 14, 2007 relating to the financial statements of XL Capital Assurance Inc., which appears as Exhibit 99.1 in Security Capital Assurance Ltd's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York March 29, 2007CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4 comprising part of the Registration Statement (No. 333-130961-04) of our report dated March 14, 2007 relating to the financial statements of XL Financial Assurance Ltd., which appears as Exhibit 99.2 in Security Capital Assurance Ltd's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
Hamilton, Bermuda March 29, 2007
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Rural Telephone Bank 

*Time and Date:*                     4 p.m., Monday, February 11, 2008.                 

*Place:*                     Sheraton New Orleans Hotel, Gallier AB Room, 500 Canal St., New Orleans, LA 70130.                 

*Status:*                     Open.                 

*Matters To Be Considered:*                     The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the Board of Directors meeting:                 

1. Call to Order 

2. Report on the Rural Telephone Bank Dissolution: 
    - Secretary's Report.
    - Treasurer's Report.
    - Report on the Dissolution.

3. Reflections on the Rural Telephone Bank. 

4. Adjournment and Closing Remarks by Under Secretary Thomas C. Dorr. 

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Jonathan Claffey, Deputy Assistant Governor and Assistant Secretary, Rural Telephone Bank, (202) 720-9554.                 

Dated: January 29, 2008. 

James M. Andrew, 

Governor, Rural Telephone Bank.

 [FR Doc. E8-2042 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
National Presto Industries, Inc.
                                   Exhibit 11



The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                                             First Quarter
                                                             -------------
                                                           2000         1999
                                                           ----         ----
Net Earnings (1)                                         $ 3,018      $ 3,280
                                                        ======================

Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)             7,155        7,360

Common share equivalents relating to stock options             1            1

Adjusted common and common equivalent                   ----------------------
   shares for computation (3)                              7,156        7,361
                                                        ======================

Net earnings per share:
     Basic (1 divided by 2)                              $  0.42      $  0.45
                                                        ======================
     Diluted (1 divided by 3)                            $  0.42      $  0.45
                                                        ======================
National Presto Industries, Inc.
                                   Exhibit 11




The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the 1988 Stock Option Plan will be
exercised.

(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      Third Quarter    First Nine Months
                                                      -------------    -----------------
                                                      1998     1997      1998    1997
                                                      ----     ----      ----    ----
<S>          <C>                                     <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>   
Net Earnings (1)                                     $3,735   $3,503   $9,305   $8,721
                                                     ===============   ===============

Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)        7,357    7,354    7,357    7,354


Common share equivalents relating to stock options        1        1        1        1

Adjusted common and common equivalent                ---------------   ---------------
   shares for computation (3)                         7,358    7,355    7,358    7,355
                                                     ===============   ===============
Net earnings per share:
     Basic (1/2)                                     $ 0.50   $ 0.48   $ 1.26   $ 1.19
                                                     ===============   ---------------
     Diluted (1/3)                                   $ 0.50   $ 0.48   $ 1.26   $ 1.19
                                                     ===============   ===============

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of the Pittsburgh & West
Virginia Railroad (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
David H. Lesser, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Trustees and
Arun Mittal, Vice President Business Development and Secretary-
Treasurer, certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 Trust.


/s/ David H. Lesser
David H. Lesser
CEO and Chairman of the Board of Trustees

Date:  October 19, 2011



/s/ Arun Mittal
Arun Mittal
Secretary-Treasurer and VP
  Business Development

Date:  October 19, 2011
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 11 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Apa ric io Lop ez-M at ul

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Aug us t 1 0, 2 01 2 Fil ed : Oct ob er 4 , 20 12 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Gua te m al an ci ti zen Apa ric io Lop ez-M at ul pe ti ti on s for revi ew of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA), w h ic h up he ld an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s de ni al of wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al

.To ob ta in wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al , Lop ez-M at ul was req ui red to es ta bl is h th at

hi s li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed in Gua te m al a be cau se of hi s ra c e , r e li gi on , na ti on al it y , memb e r s h ip in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li ti cal op in io n. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). Lop ez-M at ul as se rte d th at he face d su ch pe rs ecu ti on in Gua te m al a be cau se of hi s m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr oup, w hi ch he de sc rib es
as Gua te m al an rep at ria te s who ha ve li ve d an d wor ke d in th e Uni te d St at es fo r m an y y ears an d are pe rcei ve d as weal th y

. Upo n care fu l rev ie w, we ag ree wit h th e BIA th at th e gr ou p Lop ez-M at ul de sc rib es do es no t q ua li fy as a “ pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” fo r pu rp os es of wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. See Mat ul -Hern an de z v. Hol de r, 68 5 F.3 d 70 7, 71 2- 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ th e gr ou p ‘G ua te m al an s r e t u r n i n g fro m th e Uni te d St at es who are pe rcei ve d as weal th y ’ is no t a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p” wit hi n m ean in g of im m ig rat io n la ws; reas on in g th at “ th ere was li tt le ev id en ce th at th e pu rp or te d gr ou p
wou ld be pe rcei ve d as a de te rm in ab le gr ou p by so ci et y or su bjec t to a hi gh er in ci de nc e of cri m e th an th e res t of th e po pu la ti on ”). Ac c o r d i n g ly, we de ny th e pe ti ti on for rev ie w. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### PONDEROSA DAIRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann M. VENEMAN, Secretary, Department of Food & Agriculture, State of California, Defendant, and A.J. Yates, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Department of Food & Agriculture, State of California, et al., Defendants — Appellees. HILLSIDE DAIRY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, Defendant, and A.J. Yates, as Undersecretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 99-16981, 99-16982. D.C. No. CV-97-01185-GEB(JFM), CV-97-01179-GEB(JFM).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Before SNEED and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges and SEDWICK, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

ORDER

This court’s decision has been reversed by the United States Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings. Our decision had affirmed the district court, so we now remand these cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California for further proceedings consistent with the decision by the United States Supreme Court.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20450

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

REGINALD WAYNE YAUMAN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-158-ALL

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reginald Wayne Yauman, federal prisoner # 16025-179, pleaded guilty to

possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack

cocaine) and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Yauman to 135 months of

imprisonment on the crack cocaine count and a mandatory, consecutive 60-

month sentence on the firearms count. Following the enactment of Amendment

706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which effectively reduced the base offense

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 11, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20450

2

level for cases involving crack cocaine by two levels, Yauman moved to reduce

his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court granted

Yauman’s motion and reduced his sentence by 75 months. The court

subsequently issued a sua sponte order that amended the sentence reduction to

15 months. The judgment reflects that the sentence consists of 120 months,

which is the statutory minimum, on the crack cocaine count, see 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(A), and a consecutive 60-month sentence on the firearms count.

Yauman now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

reconsideration of the amended order reducing his sentence on the drug charge

by 15 months. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion

because the statutory minimum sentence on the drug count does not adequately

take into account the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The

Government has filed a motion to dismiss, for summary affirmance, or,

alternatively, for an extension of time within which to file a brief.

The district court could not have imposed a guidelines sentence that was

lower than the statutorily mandated minimum penalty. See United States v.

Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008).

Yauman has not shown that he may be sentenced below the statutory minimum

sentence. See United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

129 S. Ct. 212 (2008).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, the motions to dismiss and for an extension of time are DENIED,

and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.