alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

t0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144225

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 14422 5

COA: 306311

Kent CC: 08

- 010052

- FC

KERRY DALE MILLER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22 , 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 11, 2009*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.2 Credit Market Borrowing by Nonfinancial Sectors** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Frank D. SANDERS et al., Appellants, v. MURPHY INVESTMENT COMPANY, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

H. L. Anderson, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

Scofield & Scofield, of Inverness, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 2179

ANGELLO A. D. OSBORNE
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
PETER GEORGIADES, Police Corporal
,
Defendant

- Appellee,

and

DIONE WHITE, LGSW; MEREDITH LYNN PIPITONE,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv

- 00182

- RDB )

Submitted : March 20, 2018 Decided: September 30, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Angello A. D. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Angello A. D. Osborne appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Peter Georgiades on qualified immunity grounds . We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Osborne v. Georgiades , No. 1:14

- cv

- 00182

- RDB (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2017)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

proc ess.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Statement - computation of per share earnings

                Statement of Computations of Earnings per Share
                                        

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            For the Three Months
                                               Ended Mar. 31
                                          -----------------------
                                              1999         1998
                                          -----------  -----------
<S>                                     <C>            <C> 
Net Earnings                              $ 3,416,000  $ 4,251,000
                                          ===========  ===========
 
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                              15,005,000   15,005,000
                                          ===========  ===========
 
Basic and diluted earnings per share
  of common stock                         $       .23  $       .28
                                          ===========  ===========
 
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-0434-RBJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

JAN MICHAEL PHILLIPS,

Defendant.

ORDER SETTING TRIAL, DATES AND DEADLINES

This matter has been scheduled for a four-day jury trial on the docket of Judge R. 

Brooke Jackson in the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom A702, 7th Floor, 

901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado, to commence January 10th, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. It is 

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by November 23, 2012 and responses 

to these motions shall be filed by December 7, 2012. It is further

ORDERED that expert witness disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 shall be made 

no later than seven days before the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such 

experts shall be made by the pretrial motion filing deadline. It is further

ORDERED that disclosures regarding rebuttal expert witnesses shall be made one week 

after the deadline for filing pretrial motions and any challenges to such experts shall be made no 

later than two weeks after the pretrial motions deadline. It is further 

ORDERED that counsel shall jointly contact Mary DeRosa by telephone at (303) 844-

4694 or by email at Jackson_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov within five days after filing of pretrial motions to set the case for Motions Hearing. It is further

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 7 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
ORDERED that a Trial Preparation Conference is scheduled for January 4, 2012 at 9:00 

a.m. in Courtroom A702. Lead counsel who will try the case shall attend in person. 

During the Trial Preparation Conference the parties should be prepared to address: jury 

instructions, jury selection, witnesses and evidence, anticipated evidentiary issues, stipulations as 

to fact, and any other issue affecting the duration or course of the trial.

For additional information, please review my practice standards located at 

www.cod.uscourts.gov/Judges/Judges.aspx.

If the parties reach a disposition, the Trial Preparation Conference will be converted to a 

Change of Plea Hearing. The deadline for submitting the plea agreement and statement of facts 

relevant to sentencing and the statement by defendant in advance of plea of guilty will be 48 

hours prior to the Change of Plea Hearing.

DATED this 8

th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT: 

___________________________________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00434-RBJ Document 7 Filed 11/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10.3
 [Letterhead of Primus Asset Management, Inc.]
  
   Company Agreement
 Position and Term
 Primus
  End of the
Term
 Compensation and Benefits
 Base Salary




---



##### 




    
    Medical, Drug and Dental Insurance, and Vision Coverage
 
    
    Vacation in accordance with Company policy
 
    
    A 401(k) plan with partial Company contribution matching
 
    
    Sick leave, granted on an as-needed basis. (Sick leave taken beyond five business days
per year will require medical explanation.)
  Termination of Employment
  Release
 Severance Period
   2




---



##### 



Severance Pay Plan
 Defined Terms
  Board
 Cause
 Change in Control
 COBRA Premium COBRA Coverage
  3




---



##### 



Code
 Disability
 Good Reason ,
 Change in Control
   4




---



##### 



Other Terms
 Proprietary Information; Non-Solicitation
 Enforcement of Covenants
 Taxation
   5




---



##### 



Amendment
 Entire Agreement
 No Mitigation
 Assignment
 Nonalienation of Benefits
 No Contract of Employment
 Death
  6




---



##### 



Severability of Provisions
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
    
  /s/ CHRISTOPHER N. GEROSA

Christopher N. Gerosa
  7




---



##### 



Appendix A
 RELEASE
 et seq [add provisions with respect to
other applicable state laws relating to employment;]
  8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



a.
    
    The Company advises me to consult with an attorney before signing
this Release;
 b.
    
    I have obtained independent legal advice from an attorney of my own
choice with respect to this Release, or I have knowingly and voluntarily chosen
not to do so;
 c.
    
    I freely, voluntarily and knowingly entered into this Release after
due consideration;
 d.
    
    I have had a minimum of twenty-one (21) days to review and consider
this Release;
 e.
    
    If I knowingly and voluntarily choose to do so, I may accept the
terms of this Release before the twenty-one (21) day consideration period provided
for above has expired;
 f.
    
    I have a right to revoke this Release by notifying the [General
Counsel of the Company] in writing within seven (7) days of my execution of this
Release;
 g.
    
    In exchange for my waivers and releases and commitments set forth
herein, including my waiver and release of all claims arising under ADEA, the
payments, benefits and other considerations that I will receive pursuant to the
Agreement exceed any payment, benefit or other thing of value to which I would
otherwise be entitled, and are just and sufficient consideration for the waivers
and releases set forth herein.
   [Signatures to be added.]
  10




---



##### 



Appendix B
 Primus Asset Management, Inc. Proprietary Information and Innovations
 Proprietary Information Company Proprietary
Information
   11




---



##### 



Innovations Innovations
 Moral Rights
    12
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A)
      AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                              Dated: November 14, 2005   /S/ VICTOR INSETTA
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
[No. 34911.

Department Two.

March 26, 1959.]

#### Gladys Newman, as *Executrix, Respondent,*v. Owl Transfer & Storage Company, *Appellant.**1*

*Hullin & Ehrlichman,*for appellant.

*Carnahan, Gordon & Goodwin*and *Ralph M. Rogers,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 337 P. (2d) 32.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for wrongful death. The first trial of the lawsuit resulted in a jury verdict for the defendant. However, the trial judge granted a new trial because of error in instructions to the jury. We affirmed, on appeal; *Newman v. Owl Transfer & Storage Co.*(1957), 51 Wn. (2d) 67, 316 P. (2d) 120. Reference is hereby made to that opinion for the material facts. The second trial resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

On the present appeal the appellant argues that it was error for the trial court to give an instruction on the “emergency doctrine.” The appellant asserts that there is no evidence in the record which supports the giving of that instruction. We agree.

In addition to those facts set out in our previous opinion in the *Newman*case, *supra, we*add the following: There were no eyewitnesses to the accident. There is no evidence to indicate that the decedent saw appellant’s truck at any time before the collision. The decedent’s car left no skid marks. It is true that at the time of the impact *788decedent’s car was over the center line of St. Helens Avenue. However, after the impact, the wheels of the car were pointed straight ahead and would not indicate that the decedent had attempted to swerve his car in an effort to avoid the truck.

In *Ulve v. Raymond*(1957), 51 Wn. (2d) 241, 317 P. (2d) 908, this court, commenting on a request for an instruction on the “emergency doctrine,” stated:

> “Requested instruction No. 18—which respondent designates as ‘the standard instruction on emergency’—is not justified by the record before us. *It would permit the jury to speculate whether Mr. Ulve appreciated at any time that he was in a position of peril and was required to make a choice. The record is silent.”*(Italics ours.)

Also, in the case at bar, the record is silent as to facts which would justify the giving of an instruction on the “emergency doctrine.” Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court in the instant case must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. It'is so ordered.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1003

___________________________

Harriet M. Liedtke,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Ria Runningen; Timberland Partners; City of Burnsville; Matthew Smith;

Fairview Health Services; Dakota County; Angela Elwell; Joe Dalager,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: September 5, 2017

 Filed: September 8, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Harriet M. Liedtke appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. 1

§ 1983 action. We have carefully considered the matters Liedtke raises on appeal,

and we find no basis to overturn the district court’s extensive and thoughtful opinion. 

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

2013 and 2014 Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements 

The compensation for the executive officers of Cerus Corporation regarding annual base salaries and target bonus percentages were as follows:

  

																	
	 Name
	  	2013
Annual Base
Salary (1)	 	  	2013
Targeted Bonus
(as a % of 2012
Annual Base
Salary)	 	 	2014
Annual Base
Salary (1)	 	  	2014
Targeted Bonus
(as a % of 2013
Annual Base
Salary)	 
	 William M. Greenman

President and Chief Executive Officer 
	  	$	500,000	  	  	 	60	% 	 	$	525,000	  	  	 	60	% 
	 Laurence M. Corash, M.D.

Senior Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer 
	  	$	399,866	  	  	 	40	% 	 	$	407,863	  	  	 	40	% 
	 Carol Moore

Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Quality and Clinical 
	  	$	316,891	  	  	 	40	% 	 	$	326,398	  	  	 	40	% 
	 Chrystal N. Menard

Chief Legal Officer
	  	$	280,000	  	  	 	35	% 	 	$	301,000	  	  	 	40	% 
	 Kevin D. Green

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer(2)

	  	$	279,607	  	  	 	35	% 	 	$	313,160	  	  	 	40	% 
	 Caspar Högeboom(3)

President, Cerus Europe B.V.
	  	$	301,961	  	  	 	40	% 	 	$	325,980	  	  	 	40	% 

  

	(1)	Annual base salary was effective March 1, 2013. 

  

	(2)	Mr. Green’s title changed from Vice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer to Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective February 28, 2013. 


 

	(3)	Mr. Högeboom’s 2013 annual base salary of €230,153 has been converted from Euros to United States dollar by applying an average exchange rate of €1 to $1.312 which was the exchange rate in
effect on March 1, 2013. Mr. Högeboom’s 2014 annual base salary of €237,059 has been converted from Euros to United States dollar using the exchange rate of €1 to $1.3751, which was the exchange rate in effect on
March 1, 2014.
812 A.2d 1105

#### PHILIP D’ARRIGO, M.D., ETC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE SOUTH JERSEY HOSPITAL SYSTEM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-MOVANTS.

November 6, 2002.

It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for consideration of the appeal on the merits.
##### 



Exhibit 12
 Sybase, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in thousands, except for ratios)
(Full year for all periods excluding six months ended June 30, 2006)
 Six monthsendedJune 30,2006
    
    2005
    
    2004
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2001Earnings:Income before income taxes
and cumulative effect of an
accounting change
    
    $
    64,570
    
    
    $
    136,714
    
    
    $
    100,966
    
    
    $
    118,095
    
    
    $
    71,209
    
    
    $
    978Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    10,841
    
    
    
    20,233
    
    
    
    11,988
    
    
    
    13,204
    
    
    
    14,556
    
    
    
    10,610Total Earnings, as defined
    
    
    75,411
    
    
    
    156,947
    
    
    
    112,954
    
    
    
    131,299
    
    
    
    85,765
    
    
    
    11,588Fixed ChargesInterest expense
    
    
    4,763
    
    
    
    8,116
    
    
    
    308
    
    
    
    62
    
    
    
    198
    
    
    
    276Amortization of debt expense
    
    
    984
    
    
    
    1,671
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Estimated interest portionon rental expense
    
    
    5,094
    
    
    
    10,446
    
    
    
    11,680
    
    
    
    13,142
    
    
    
    14,358
    
    
    
    10,334Total Fixed Charges
    
    
    10,841
    
    
    
    20,233
    
    
    
    11,988
    
    
    
    13,204
    
    
    
    14,556
    
    
    
    10,610Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    7.0
    
    
    
    7.8
    
    
    
    9.4
    
    
    
    9.9
    
    
    
    5.9
    
    
    
    1.1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10314

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEJUAN LAMONT WILLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-1-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Dejuan Lamont Willis has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Willis’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* 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

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 16-10314

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Willis’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, Willis’s motion to vacate sentence 

and remand for resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     See accompanying notes.
     $ in thousands except per share data
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-25-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         15,375
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    19,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               90,750
<PP&E>                                         56,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          47,733
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       224
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,763
<SALES>                                        54,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          32,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (385)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                   718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .18



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 

**- 1336** 

MOUSSA BOUKARI TCHIANI
,

Petitioner

,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : December 16, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

William H. Brammer, Jr., NEW COLUMBIA LAW GROUP PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Carmel A. Morgan, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublishe d opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Moussa Boukari Tchiani , a native and citizen of Niger,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and

numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record

and Tchiani ’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse

its discretion in denying Tchiani ’s motion. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a) (201 5 ); Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th

Cir. 2009). We acc ordingly deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tchian i (B.I.A. Mar. 3,

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED