alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 1, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01259 - CR CHRISTOPHER ALAN LUP ER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 062211 

### O RDER Before the Court is a letter filed by appellant on November 17, 2014. In the letter, appellant informs the Court he is filing a petition for discretionary review and he believes he is entitled to counsel to prepare the pe tition. Petitions for discretionary review are not filed with this Court and this Court does not appoint counsel for such filings. To the extent appellant believes he has filed a motion seeking to have counsel appointed by this Court, his motion is DENIE D

. The letter also states appellant intends to file a motion for rehearing. To the extent appellant is requesting additional time to file a motion for rehearing, that motion is GRANTED

. We extend the deadline for appellant to file a motion for rehearing by thirty (30) days.If appellant seeks any additional relief in his letter, that relief is DENIED

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
FILED 

FEB 1 2 2016 

• TRAICIE K. LIND 

BY 

CHIEF DEPUn CLERK 

tieri_42‘ 

Hardesty 

Saitta Pickering 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

941 1947A 1Lo -13(1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

NICKI BOYD, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

NICKI BOYD, 

No. 69443 

No. 69636 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These appeals were initiated by the filing of pro se notices of 

appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas Smith, 

Judge. 

Appellant's notices of appeal fail to designate any appealable 

decisions of the district court. Accordingly, we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Nguyen & Lay 

Nicki Boyd 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 2
#### Edward L. BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5900.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 29, 2010.

Edward L. Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(4)(B).

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### Paul L. HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D10-2689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 15, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 2010.

Paul L. Henderson, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We elect to treat the petition for certio-rari as an appeal and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
ex10_2.htm


    
      

    

    
      Exhibit No. 10.2

       

      Form of Senior Executive
Officer Waiver

      


       

      In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required
to comply with the regulation issued by the Department of the Treasury as
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.

       

      I
acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation,
bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements
(including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program.

       

      This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any
state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation,
including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I
would otherwise receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation
was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these
regulations on my employment relationship.

      


      


      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	
                            [Senior
      Executive Officer Name]

                          	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	 
      	 
	 
      	
                            Date
Exhibit 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-68226 on Form S-8 of Category 5 Technologies, Inc., filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission by Category 5 Technologies, Inc. on August
23, 2001, of our report dated September 10, 2002 and relating to the audits of
the consolidated financial statements of Category 5 Technologies, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002 and 2001 and for the year ended June 30, 2002,
the six months ended June 30, 2001 and for the year ended December 31, 2000,
which report appears in the June 30, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Category 5 Technologies, Inc.
                                                          /s/ TANNER+CO.

Salt Lake City, Utah
October 8, 2002
645 A.2d 134

#### FOSTER WHEELER PASSAIC, INC. v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC, PASSAIC COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY, AND NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY.

June 10, 1994.

ORDER

The Court having determined that the petitions for certification were improvidently granted;

*304IT IS ORDERED that the within appeals be and hereby are dismissed.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this Order.

Justice O’HERN dissents from this order. He believes that the Court should retain jurisdiction and hold that it is only compliance with the McEnroe Act, *N.J.S.A.*13:1E-136 to -168, that allows the avoidance of the public-bidding requirements of the Local Public Contracts Law, *N.J.S.A.*40A:11-1 to -49. The provisions of neither having been met, the plaintiffs claim for recovery is not authorized by law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                      10,175,279
<SECURITIES>                                45,656,875
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,295,594
<PP&E>                                      13,154,477
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,998,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,479,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          814,455
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,924
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,431,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,479,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,723,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,723,234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,723,234)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mathilda Pokriefka v. John Mackurat, Sr.

*Assault and battery*— Evidence—Comments *of court.*

In a civil suit for assault and battery,—

a — Evidence of defendant’s good character is inadmissible.

b — Plaintiff may show all that occurred; and it is error to exclude or comment unfavorably upon any testimony tending to prove any of the circumstances leading up to the assault.

c — If defendant offers testimony tending to show some other cause or reason for plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff may rebut such testimony.

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.)

Argued April 6, 1892.

Decided April 22, 1892.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*William Look*and *H. F. Chipman,*for appellant.

*William Jennison,*for defendant.

McGrath, J.

This is a civil action for assault and battery.. The injuries complained of were serious. Defendant had a verdict, and plaintiff appeals.

The judgment must be reversed, because—

1. The evidence as to defendant’s good' character was improperly received. *Fahey v. Crotty,*63 Mich. 383.

2. Plaintiff and defendant were neighbors, each .having a son about 19 years of age. Plaintiff claimed that her son had b.een assaulted in front of her own house by defendant and his son; that defendant had thrown a brick, which struck plaintiff’s son on the head, inflicting a severe scalp wound; that plaintiff ran out and took her son by the arm, to assist him into the house, whereupon defendant threw a second brick, striking her on the back, inflicting a severe injury, which was followed by a miscarriage. Plaintiff was entitled to show all that *400occurred, and it was error to exclude or comment unfavorably upon any testimony tending to prove any of the-circumstances leading up to the assault. It was competent for her to show that she took no part. in the quarrel, and that the attack upon her was uncalled for and wanton.

3. Defendant offered testimony tending to show some other cause or reason for plaintiff's injury, and it was error to exclude the testimony offered in rebuttal contradicting defendant's theory.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to plaintiff.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          31,495
<SECURITIES>                                     6,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,631
<INVENTORY>                                      7,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,127
<PP&E>                                          49,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,709
<SALES>                                        473,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               473,851
<CGS>                                          188,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  438,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                       450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,287
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75

<FN>

In connection with its initial public offering in July 1997, the Company
converted from an S corporation to a C corporation. Earnings per share data are
based on pro forma net income which was calculated as if the Company had been a
C corporation for the entire period.

</FN>



</TABLE>
856 A.2d 42

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Robert S. FISHER, Respondent.

No. 640 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 29, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 28, 2004, the Petition for Review and response thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that Robert S. Fisher be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, and he shall comply with all of the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
EX-10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Of STEVE H. KANZER




     This amendment (the “Amendment”) made as of January 6, 2009 to the Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) by and between Adeona Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Corporation”) and Steve H. Kanzer (“Employee”):




	 	 	 	Employee agrees to forego Employee’s calendar year 2008 guaranteed bonus in the amount of
$100,000 otherwise due January 1, 2009.
	 
	 	 	 	Employee agrees to an extension of the term of employment agreement for a period of one (1)
year until January 9, 2010 with an annual salary of one dollar ($1.00) per annum, no
guaranteed bonus for calendar year 2009, no severance in the event of termination no
additional stock options.






	 	 	 	Employee shall be entitled to participate in the Corporation’s medical health coverage plan
and/or COBRA coverage plan at Employee’s own expense.





Agreed and Accepted:



	 	 	 	 	 
	ADEONA PHARAMCEUTICALS, INC.

 	 
	 	 
	By:

Its: 	 
	 
	 	 
	Steve H. Kanzer
#### Bernard P. Cowley and Robert L. Lott v. George L. Colwell.

*Negligence*— Accidental *fires.*

This case is ruled by *McNally v. Colwell, ante,*527.

Error to Alcona. (Simpson, J.)

Argued February 11, 1892.

Decided May 13, 1892.

Negligence case. Defendant brings error.

Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion, and in *McNally v. Colwell, ante,*527.

*R. J. Kelley,*for appellant.

*W. E. Depew (Franh Emerick,*for counsel), for plaintiffs.

*538Morse, C. J.

This case differs but little from *McNally v. Colwell, ante, 521,*and must be governed by it. The question of the intoxication of the engineer and fireman, and their use of liquor, was practically eliminated from the case by the circuit judge. Fault is found that he did not expressly instruct the jury that they should not consider the testimony, in making up their verdict, as to the use of liquor by these men; but the jury were clearly told that they only had one question to consider, and that was as to the appliances kept in the mill to prevent fires.

For the reasons stated in *McNally v. Colwell*the judgment in this ease must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs of this Court to defendant.

The other Justices concurred.
#### STATE ex rel. Michael GADDIS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1203.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re Gaddis, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *993Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 03-5508; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-165.

Denied.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
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 MakeMusic! Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Philip Sean Lafleur,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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.

May 12, 2003



/s/ Philip Sean Lafleur
Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to MakeMusic! Inc. and will be retained by MakeMusic! Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

21
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7164 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2018 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. NEAL) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add Ireland to the E–3 nonimmigrant visa program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. E–3 VISAS FOR IRISH NATIONALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) of the 

5 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or, on a 

7 basis of reciprocity as determined by the Secretary of 

8 State, a national of Ireland,’’ after ‘‘Australia’’. 

9 (b) EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.—Section 212 of the 

10 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 

11 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7164 IH

1 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (t) 

2 (as added by section 1(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 108– 

3 449 (118 Stat. 3470)) as subsection (u); and 

4 (2) by adding at the end of subsection (t)(1) 

5 (as added by section 402(b)(2) of Public Law 108– 

6 77 (117 Stat. 941)) the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) In the case of an attestation filed with re8 spect to a national of Ireland described in section 

9 101(a)(15)(E)(iii), the employer is, and will remain 

10 during the period of authorized employment of such 

11 Irish national, a participant in good standing in the 

12 E–Verify program described in section 403(a) of the 

13 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Respon14 sibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).’’. 

15 (c) VISA ALLOCATION.—Section 214(g)(11) of the 

16 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(11)) 

17 is amended— 

18 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘The Sec19 retary of State may not approve a number of initial 

20 applications’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in 

21 subparagraph (D), the Secretary of State may not 

22 approve a number of initial applications’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

24 ‘‘(D)(i) Subject to the limitation in clause 

25 (ii), the Secretary may approve initial applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:07 Nov 20, 2018 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7164.IH H7164

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7164 IH

1 tions submitted for aliens described in section 

2 101(a)(15)(E)(iii) for a fiscal year who are na3 tionals of Ireland only in a number equal to the 

4 difference between 10,500 and the number of 

5 applications approved in a prior fiscal year for 

6 aliens who are nationals of the Commonwealth 

7 of Australia. 

8 ‘‘(ii) In no event may any application be 

9 approved such that the total number of initial 

10 applications approved in the period beginning 

11 on the first day of the fiscal year immediately 

12 preceding the fiscal year for which the applica13 tion is made would be 21,000 or more.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24971]



[[Page 61470]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-3022-000]


Cianbro Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Cianbro Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91d7d4c3d2defffdf8fff4c2e4e1e1fee3e5d1f7f4e3f2bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ed8dbccddd1f0f2f7f0fbcdebeeeef1eceadef8fbecfdb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24971 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>