alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THIS COURT having reviewed Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, and having been

fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings and conclusions:

I. Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on August 29, 2011, and

is in default for failing to answer or respond.

2. Venue has been considered and is proper in Denver County.

3. Defendant is not an infant, an incompetent person, an officer or agency of the

State of Colorado, or in the military service.

4. Defendant has caused Plaintiff damages in the amount of $216,958.54, including

back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages.

5. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages in the amount of

$101,540.94, equal to the monetary damages awarded under the Family and Medical Leave Act.29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1)(A)(iii).

6. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees of $4981.50, the sum of which is

reasonable, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3), and 42 U.S.C. §

1988(b).

3

EXHIBIT

J

Plaintiff: MALI TOLMAN,

v.

Defendant: AIR SERV CORPORATION.

‘ Court Use Only

Case No.: 201 1-cv-5920Division: 269

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
of $216,958.54, liquidated damages of $101,540.94, attorney fees of $4981.50, and costs of

$432.54, for a total judgment of $323,913.52. Plaintiff is entitled to the foregoing Judgment as

well as statutory post-judgment interest from the date of this Order until the Judgment is

satisfied.

DATED this 

day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

District Court Judge
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 12-55-1 12, a notary must affix her stamp or seal.

The Client Affidavit at Ex. 5, contains a notary’s signature, but does not contain such notary’s stamp or seal.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended motion for default judgment consistent with this order on or before

Nov. 2,2011.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.223 Trade Credit** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60575

 

ROBERT W. JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRUE TEMPER SPORTS, Also Known as Emhart Industries, Inc., 

Also Known as Black & Decker Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

(1:97-135-D-D)

 

August 9, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and Cobb,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.**

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its July 22,

1998 Memorandum Opinion.

AFFIRMED.

 

*District Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

**Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1236

___________________________

Onesmus Bogonko Daniel

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: November 4, 2019

Filed: November 5, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kenyan citizen Onesmus Daniel petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decisions of an immigration

judge, which granted the Department of Homeland Security’s motion to reconsider

a decision to terminate removal proceedings, and denied him cancellation of
removal.

1 Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and after careful consideration

of the petition, this court finds no basis for reversal. 

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The agency’s remaining findings — including the denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and voluntary

departure—are not before this panel. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751,

756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not raised in opening brief is waived). 

-2-
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1941 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility 

of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit 

of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located 

in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park 

System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wolf House Study Act 

5 of 2007’’. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 1941 IS

1 SEC. 2. FINDING. 

2 Congress finds that the Wolf House, located in Nor3 folk, Arkansas, is the oldest 2-story log structure and the 

4 oldest territorial courthouse west of the Mississippi River. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

8 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di9 rector of the National Park Service. 

10 (2) WOLF HOUSE.—The term ‘‘Wolf House’’ 

11 means the structure known by that name located on 

12 Highway 5 in Norfolk, Arkansas. 

13 SEC. 4. WOLF HOUSE STUDY. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation 

15 with the State of Arkansas, shall— 

16 (1) carry out a study on the suitability and fea17 sibility of designating the Wolf House as a unit of 

18 the National Park System; and 

19 (2) consider management alternatives for the 

20 Wolf House. 

21 (b) APPLICABLE LAW.—Except as provided by sub22 section (c), section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 

23 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of the 

24 study required by subsection (a). 

25 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

26 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

•S 1941 IS

1 the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep2 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

3 Resources of the Senate a report describing the results 

4 of the study. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
CA-EX10.64_2014.03.31-Q4






Exhibit 10.64




CA, Inc. 


Summary Description of Director Compensation 


On May 14, 2014, the Board of Directors of CA, Inc. (the “Company”), upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance Committee of the Board, modified the compensation arrangements for the non-employee directors of the Company, effective as of the beginning of the fiscal year on April 1, 2014. The following table shows the annual fees for our non-employee directors.


	
							
	Annual Fee Description
	Fee Prior to April 1, 2014
	Fee Effective April 1, 2014

	Non-Employee Director
	

	$275,000
	

	

	$325,000
	


	Chairman of the Board
	

	$100,000
	

	

	$100,000
	


	Audit Committee Chairman
	

	$25,000
	

	

	$25,000
	


	Compensation and Human Resources Committee Chairman
	

	$15,000
	

	

	$15,000
	


	Compliance and Risk Committee Chairman
	

	$10,000
	

	

	$10,000
	


	Corporate Governance Committee Chairman
	

	$10,000
	

	

	$10,000
	







In establishing the change to non-employee director fees, the Board undertook a process involving collaboration with Towers Watson, the independent compensation consultant who advises the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board.  At the recommendation of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, Towers Watson was engaged to assist the Corporate Governance Committee and the Board with their deliberations by providing competitive market data and advice.  The data provided by Towers Watson indicated, among other things, that the total fees paid by the Company to non-employee directors in their capacity as such in fiscal year 2014 were positioned below the median of the Company’s compensation benchmarking group.  The new fee structure results in total non-employee director fees that approximate the median of the compensation benchmarking group while maintaining the maximum cash election at $100,000.


The non-employee director fees had not been increased since April 2010.


Pursuant to the Company’s 2012 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, non-employee director fees that are not elected to be received in cash are to be paid in the form of deferred stock units, which are settled upon retirement.  As a consequence of the market-based increase, which will be delivered in the form of deferred stock units, non-employee directors are required to receive a greater percentage of their director fees in the form of equity.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors of Pure Resources, Inc.

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated March 10, 2000 relating to the
financial statements of Pure Resources, Inc., formerly referred to as Union
Oil's Permian Basin business unit, which appears in Pure Resources, Inc.'s
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-34970).


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston, Texas

October 17, 2000
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 6, 2019 * Decided May 23, 2019

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1869

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

,

v

.

ANTWON D. JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 12-cr-30239

Staci M. Yandle,
J udge

.

O R D E R

We stayed Antwon Jenkins’s direct appe al from his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) because the Su preme Court is currently considering a challenge to that statutory provision. On February 1, 2019, we affirmed the district court’s denial of several motions Jenkins filed requesting copi es of motions and briefs filed during his prosecution. United States v. Jenkins , 750 F. App’x 486 (7th Cir. 2019).

* After examining the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 19-1869 Page 2

Jenkins subsequently filed a variety of ot her motions on the district court docket. He seeks a new trial, clarification on the leng th of sentence he has yet to serve, release pending resentencing, complimentary copies of court documents, and a deferment of his restitution payments until after resentenci ng. The district court denied each motion.

None of these motions merit extended discussion. He filed the motion for a new trial, citing newly discovered evidence, over four years after his conviction. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b) requires defe ndants to file such motions within three years of the guilty verdict. And Rule 33(b) furthe r specifies that, if an appeal is pending, the district court may not grant a new tria l until court of appeals remands the case. Id. Jenkins cannot obtain relief under Rule 33(b).

The district court properly denied Jenkins’s requests for documents and information for the reasons given in our order of February 1, 2019, and the district

court’s decision. And the district court also correctly denied his motions for release pending resentencing and to halt restitutio n payments. The jury convicted Jenkins of kidnapping and using a firearm to commit a fe deral crime of violence. His direct appeal challenges only the second conviction. He was sentenced to 188 months on the kidnapping count and ordered to compensa te his victim for medical expenses. The direct appeal will not affect the sentence or restitution stemming from Count 1, and so the court properly denied these motions.

We AFFIRM the district court’s or der of April 22, 2019, denying Jenkins’s

motions.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TROY DOUGLAS BAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00064-JRS-2; 3:14-cv-00776-JRS)

Submitted: October 6, 2016 Decided: October 26, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Douglas Baylor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Douglas Baylor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Baylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Buford Ray STAMPER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1974.

William G. Reed, Jonesville, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion

PER CURIAM,

Affirming.*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 47th District Court of Potter County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on March 15,

2018, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

James Wade Holley v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-17-00256-CR Trial Court Number: 73,596-A

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated March 15, 2018, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on May 31, 2018

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fidelity Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Richard G. Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa L. Griffith, Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Richard G. Spencer  |  |  |  | /s/ Lisa L. Griffith   
|Richard G. Spencer      |  |  |  | Lisa L. Griffith       
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

February 17, 2009
#### Terry Lynn COMBS, an Infant 11 Years of Age, Suing By and Through his Father and Next Friend, Everett Combs v. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

H. B. Noble and C. A. Noble, Jr., Hazard, for appellant.

Reeves, Barret, Cooper & Ward, Hazard, Charles Landrum, Jr., Landrum & Patterson, Lexington, James M. Terry, Wanda-leen Poynter, Louisville, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner GEORGE F. WILLIAMSON,

Affirming.*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 5, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and included in the Annual Report of INRAD, Inc. on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
INRAD, Inc. on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-17883, effective December 13, 1996).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
GRANT THORNTON LLP



New York, New York
April 10, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1998             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999             APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                       2,132,622               2,591,526
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,269                (27,581)
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         12,859,404              13,361,199
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,281,295              15,925,144
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     200,719                 237,150
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    15,080,576              15,687,994
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,281,295              15,925,144
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            1,133,527                 328,435
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           704,513                 737,188
<COMMISSIONS>                                (468,664)               (486,510)
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                               (123,035)                (35,502)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,246,341                 543,611
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,246,341                 543,611
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF LIFELINE SYSTEMS, INC.**

 

Lifeline Systems Securities Corporation 

111 Lawrence Street 

Framingham, Massachusetts01702-8156 

 

Incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

 

Lifeline Systems Canada, Inc. 

95 Barber Greene Road 

North York, Ontario,Canada M3C 3E9 

 

Incorporated in the Province of Ontario, Canada

 

Lifeline Systems Export, Inc. 

The Financial Services Centre 

Bishops CourtHill 

St. Michael, Barbados 

 

Incorporated in the Country of Barbados
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch 

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02593-RPM 

MARIA SALAZAR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEALTHONE OF DENVER, INC., 

a Colorado corporation 

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiff, Maria Salazar's and 

Defendant HealthONE of Denver, Inc.'s Stipulated Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice, 

and the Court being fully advised hereby ORDERS this case is dismissed with prejudice 

and each party to pay their own costs and attorney fees. 

Dated this 14th day of January, 2013. 

 BY THE COURT 

 s/Richard P. Matsch 

 ______________________________ 

 Richard P. Matsch 

 United States District Court Judge 

 

 

Case 1:11-cv-02593-RPM Document 22 Filed 01/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[No. 34769.

Department Two.

February 19, 1959.]

#### Herman Howe, *Respondent,*v. Paul C. Helmick *et al., Appellants.**1*

*Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Uhlmann*and *Stanley J. Mitchell,*for appellants.

. *Michael K. Copass,*Lycette, *Diamond & Sylvester*and *Lyle L. Iversen,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 335 P. (2d) 598.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action for attorney fees. The defendants called for a jury. They have appealed from the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

Their single assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. No exceptions were taken to the instructions. The evidence is in conflict.

We are able to say that the record supports the verdict, and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.