alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1

 

TPG Capital Management, LP

301 Commerce Street

Suite 3300

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

 

	
 
    	
January 29,   2014
    


 

Nexeo Solutions, LLC

3 Waterway Square Place, Suite 1000

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

Attn: Ross Crane

 

Re: Monitoring Fee Reduction Notice

 

Dear Ross:

 

Reference is made to the Management Services Agreement (as amended, the “Agreement”), dated as of March 31, 2011, by and among Nexeo Solutions, LLC (together with its direct and indirect subsidiaries and any successor, the “Companies”) and TPG Capital Management, L.P. (f/k/a TPG Capital, L.P.) (the “Manager”). Terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings attributed to them in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Agreement, from and after the Closing until the termination of the Agreement, the Companies are to pay the Manager monitoring fees as compensation for the services provided by the Manager under the Agreement.

 

The Manager hereby agrees that, effective January 1, 2014, the Companies will reduce the portion of the monitoring fees payable to the Manager under the Agreement on an annual basis by $175,000. Effective January 1, 2014, the Companies will pay to Nexeo director Steve Schwarzwaelder $175,000 per annum (payable monthly) in connection with consulting services Mr. Schwarzwaelder will provide to Nexeo Solutions Holdings, LLC, the parent company to Nexeo Solutions, LLC and the Companies. This fee shall be in addition to the $100,000 per annum he currently receives as a member of the board of directors of Nexeo Solutions Holdings, LLC.  Steve Schwarzwaelder is an express third party beneficiary of this letter agreement.

 

	
 
    	
TPG   CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
By:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Ronald Cami
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Ronal Cami
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Agreed   and acknowledged by:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Nexeo   Solutions, LLC
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Michael B. Farnell Jr.
    	
 
    
	
Name:   Michael B. Farnell, Jr.
    	
 
    
	
Title:   Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
- Complete file          PDF (516 KB)     Summary statistics and table of contents 
       
   PDF (93 KB)
   | 
  CSV (10 KB)     Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables 
       
  PDF (13 KB)
   | 
  CSV (7 KB)    Flows tables 
       
  PDF (210 KB)
   | 
  CSV (134 KB)    Level tables 
       
  PDF (157 KB)
   | 
  CSV (115 KB)    Balance sheet tables 
       
  PDF(25 KB)
   | 
  CSV (14 KB)    Supplementary tables 
       
  PDF (37 KB)
   | 
  CSV (24 KB)    These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.
NO. 12-22-00247-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

TEVARES TIMMONS, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Tevares Timmons, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s 

failure to comply with a mandate from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.1

On September 22, 2021, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas relief in 

trial court cause number 114-80390-99 and ordered that Relator’s aggravated robbery conviction 

is vacated. Ex parte Timmons, No. WR-92,604-02, 2021 WL 4301844, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. 

Sept. 22, 2021) (per curiam) (op., not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal 

Appeals further ordered, “The trial court shall issue any necessary orders within ten days from 

the date of this Court’s mandate.” Id. (emphasis added). The mandate issued on October 19, 

2021. Relator asks that we issue an order to Respondent so the Court of Criminal Appeals’

mandate can be fulfilled. But because the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated Relator’s 

conviction, nothing remains for Respondent to do.

2

 Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus.

Opinion delivered September 30, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Respondent is the Honorable Austin R. Jackson, Judge of the 114th District Court in Smith County, 

Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.

2 We also note that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s inmate database lists three of Relator’s

convictions but does not list the vacated aggravated robbery conviction.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 12-22-00247-CR

TEVARES TIMMONS,

Relator

V.

HON. AUSTIN R. JACKSON,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Tevares Timmons; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-22-00247-CR and the 

defendant in trial court cause number 114-80384-99, formerly pending on the docket of the 

114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having 

been filed herein on Seotember 9, 2022, and the same having been duly considered, because it is 

the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, 

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, 

hereby denied.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02571-BNB 

SHITTU BABAJIDE [BABAJIDE SHITTU],

Plaintiff,

v.

AMREST, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER DRAWING CASE

On completion of the Court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1C, it

appears that this case is not appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, the case

will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1D. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED November 7, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02571-WJM-KMT Document 8 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for ***

the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLACKAMAS COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State of Oregon,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MIDWEST EMPLOYERS CASUALTY

COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-35063

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00780-PK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Paul J. Papak, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 13, 2012** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,

District Judge.*** 

FILED

JUN 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Appellant Clackamas County, Oregon (the County) challenges the

Magistrate Judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Midwest

Employers Casualty Company (Midwest). The County purchased an insurance

policy for workers’ compensation and employers’ liability indemnity (the Policy)

from Midwest. 

The County subsequently filed a civil action against Midwest for breach of

contract. The Magistrate Judge held that no coverage existed under the Policy for

claims against the County and its agencies, but that coverage could exist for claims

made by the individual defendants for indemnification. Midwest then filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment as suggested by the court, which was granted. The

court concluded that the County had not carried its burden of producing evidence

from which a jury could determine damages attributable to the covered claims. 

Because the County offered no evidence to show what portion of the

settlement was indemnification of the individual employees, any apportionment

determination would be completely speculative. As the Magistrate Judge noted,

the settlement agreement did not discuss what amount went to which claims. In

addition, the County offered no paperwork or accounting tracing the funds used to

indemnify the individual employees.
3

The County frames the issue on appeal as whether the Magistrate Judge

erred in requiring contemporaneous allocation of the settlement proceeds. 

However, that was not the basis of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Instead, the

Magistrate Judge found that no probative evidence of damages was presented, as

measured by satisfaction of the County’s obligation to indemnify its individual

employees.

Because the County failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding

damages, entry of summary judgment in favor of Midwest was appropriate. See

Earl, 658 F.3d at 1112. 

AFFIRMED.
Clackamas County v. Midwest Employers 11-35063

CONCURRENCE, Molloy D.J.

I concur in the disposition of this appeal, but I do not necessarily agree with

the characterization of the Magistrate’s findings.

FILED

JUN 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
#### Ex parte Witmer Jean BALLARD.

No. 50415.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 16, 1975.

*24No Attorney on Appeal.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of relief after a habeas corpus hearing for bail.

Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus alleged that he was being held by virtue of two indictments, one for murder with malice and one for robbery by firearms. Petitioner had previously been convicted for the murder in 1973. The jury assessed punishment at death. It was commuted to life imprisonent through executive clemency. The conviction was reversed, Ballard v. State, 519 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

At the habeas corpus hearing the judge was apparently under the impression that bail which had been set on appeal was in effect. Where one is convicted and the punishment assessed exceeds fifteen years, he is not entitled to bail. Article 44.04, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and Ex parte Bitela, 452 S.W.2d 501 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Therefore, the previously set bail was void. Since the conviction was reversed and remanded for new trial, the case is in the same position as if a new trial had been granted by the court below. Article 44.29, V.A.C.C.P. When such a case is reversed, the defendant therein “shall be released from custody, upon his giving bail as in other cases when he is entitled to bail.” Article 44.32, V.A.C.C.P. Neither indictment under which petitioner is held is a capital offense; therefore, he is entitled to bail in a reasonable amount. Ex parte Contella, 485 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

This case is remanded to the trial court for the determination of a reasonable amount of bail which should be set consistent with the rules stated in Article 17.15, V.A.C.C.P., and Ex parte Roberts, 468 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).

It is so ordered.
#### Ex parte Louis Byron LARSON.

No. 46820.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1973.

*180No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order entered in a habeas corpus hearing, remanding appellant to custody for extradition to the State of Montana.

The State introduced into evidence the Executive Warrant of the Governor of this State. The Warrant recites that the appellant was convicted of the crime of possession of dangerous drugs and, thereafter, violated the terms of his probation.

The Executive Warrant of the Governor of Texas, which appears regular on its face, made out a prima facie case authorizing remand of appellant to custody for extradition. Ex parte Jackson, Tex.Cr. App., 470 S.W.2d 679; Ex parte Rhodes, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 425; Ex parte Siavin, Tex.Cr.App., 461 S.W.2d 421.

The State rested after introducing the Governor’s Warrant, and appellant, testifying in his own behalf, *denied that he was the person named in the extradition warrant.*While appellant admitted having been in the demanding state, he denied that he had ever been convicted of anything in Montana.

In Ex parte Moore, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 901, it was stated:

> “It should be kept in mind that a distinction is to be made between testimony offered by an appellant denying that he is the person named in the Governor’s Warrant and testimony that he was not in the demanding state at time of the alleged offense or other testimony of a defensive nature.”

Testimony that a person was not in the demanding state on the date of the of*181fense is insufficient to overcome the prima facie case established by the introduction of the Governor’s Warrant. Ex parte Binette, Tex.Cr.App., 465 S.W.2d 373; Ex parte Sutton, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 274; Ex parte Moore, supra; Ex parte Overaker, Tex.Cr.App., 404 S.W.2d 595.

Where identity is put in issue, the burden then shifts to the demanding state to show that the person taken into custody and held for extradition is the identical person named in the Governor’s Warrant. Ex parte Ryan, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 351, 327 S.W. 2d 596; Ex parte Kaufman, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 323 S.W.2d 48.

In the instant case, the testimony of appellant *denying that he was the person named in the Governor’s Warrant*was not challenged or denied by any witness.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 99(b)


                         Independent Accountants' Report
                         -------------------------------

The Board of Directors
Household Finance Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of consumer
automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust, Series
2001-3 has been conducted by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer,
in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of
the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated October 9, 2001 (the Agreement),
as supplemented, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002. Household
Finance Corporation's management is responsible for the assertion. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting that the
servicing of receivables has been conducted in compliance with the terms and
conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of the Agreement, as supplemented,
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the servicing of the receivables has
been conducted by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in
compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in Articles IV and V of
the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated October 9, 2001, as supplemented,
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

                                       /s/ KPMG LLP
                                       KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 28, 2003
<PAGE>

                              Management Assertion
                              --------------------


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, the servicing of consumer
automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust Series 2001-3
has been conducted by Household Auto Finance, a division of Household Finance
Corporation, in its capacity as subservicer for Household Finance Corporation,
as Master Servicer, in compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in
Articles IV and V of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated October 9,
2001, as supplemented.



/s/ TIM CONDON                              /s/ JOHN O'BRIEN
-----------------------------------         -----------------------------------
Tim Condon                                  John O'Brien
Chief Financial Officer-                    Group Director- Asset Management-
Household Auto Finance                      Household Auto Finance


February 28, 2003                           February 28, 2003
-----------------------------------         -----------------------------------
Date                                        Date
#### STANLEY SIEDLARCZYK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF GARFIELD, BERGEN COUNTY.

January 22, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 52343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21021]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than September 8, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Clint Edwin Shepard II, individually, and as trustee of the 
Clint Edwin Shepard II Trust, both of Oak Ridge, Louisiana, and 
Virginia Sue Barr, individually, and as trustee of the Virginia Sue 
Shepard Barr Trust, both of Oak Ridge, Louisiana, to acquire control of 
Oak Ridge Bancshares, Inc., and indirectly acquire control of Bank of 
Oak Ridge, both of Oak Ridge, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-21021 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.223 Trade Credit** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)


<TABLE>



                                              Thirteen weeks ended              Twenty-six weeks ended
                                            6/28/97           6/29/96          6/28/97           6/29/96
                                          ------------      ------------     ------------      ------------
<S>                                             <C>               <C>              <C>              <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                      7,274             7,185            7,236             7,184
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
      based on the treasury stock
      method using average
      market price                                 63                67               64                63
                                          ------------      ------------     ------------      ------------

                                                7,337             7,252            7,300             7,247
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============
Net Income                                     $1,741            $1,943             $682            $3,307
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============
Per share amount                                $0.24             $0.27            $0.09             $0.46
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============


Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding                      7,274             7,185            7,236             7,184
Net effect of dilutive stock options -
      based on the treasury stock
      method using quarter-end
      market price which is greater
      than average market price                    84                75               86                74
                                          ------------      ------------     ------------      ------------

                                                7,358             7,260            7,322             7,258
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============
Net Income                                     $1,741            $1,943             $682            $3,307
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============
Per share amount                                $0.24             $0.27            $0.09             $0.46
                                          ============      ============     ============      ============

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (i) FormS-8 (No. 333-118339) pertaining to the Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan for theregistration of 868,992 shares of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.’s common stock; (ii) Form S-8 (No.333-128533) pertaining to the Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. 2005 Incentive Compensation Plan for theregistration of 250,000 shares of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.’s common stock; (iii) Form S-8 (No.333-141469) pertaining to Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan for the registrationof 500,000 shares of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.’s common stock; (iv) Post-effective Amendment No.5 on Form S-3 to Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-112386) pertaining to the registrationof 653,331 shares of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.’s common stock; and (v) Amendment No. 1 Form S-3(No. 333-124672) pertaining to the registration of 1,591,000 shares of Bakers Footwear Group,Inc.’s common stock of our report dated April 30, 2008, with respect to the financial statements ofBakers Footwear Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February2, 2008./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSt. Louis, Missouri
Exhibit 23-2

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 5, 1999 (except for Note 14, as to which
the date is March 19, 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.)


Grant Thornton LLP


New York, New York

March 5, 1999