alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dawson *v.*Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division et al.

[No. 19,526.

Filed May 19, 1961.]

*2
      *James Dawson, Jr., pro se.*

*Edwin K. Steers,*Attorney General and *Quincy D. Baldwin,*of Fort Wayne, for appellees.

Ax, C. J.

Appellee, Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, filed its Motion to Dismiss this appeal, alleging in substance that appellant had failed to comply with the rules of the Supreme and Appellate Courts in the following: (1) that appellant filed his brief on December 16, 1960, which was thirty-seven days after the final date of filing as granted to appellant by an extension of time within which to file said brief; and (2) that no copy of appellant’s brief was served on appellee, Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division or their counsel, Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General of the State of Indiana, prior to the filing of said brief, or at any other time, as required by Rule 2-19, and no proof of service was ever filed.

Rule 2-15 of the Supreme Court requires that “the appellant shall have 30 days after submission in which to file his brief, and if the brief is not filed within the time limited the clerk shall enter an order dismissing the appeal, unless a petition for extension of time is on file.”

*3Under authority of *Rooney*v. *City of East Chicago*(1958), 129 Ind. App. 128, 148 N. E. 2d 842 (Rehearing denied May 13, 1958, transfer denied September 9, 1958), since a petition for extension of time had previously been granted, it was proper for the clerk to take no action on dismissal, for after the court has once granted an extension of time, the court, and not the clerk, should dismiss the appeal.

The fact that appellant’s brief is filed after his time has expired but before the order of dismissal is entered, will not save the appeal. Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, §2666, ch. 53, p. 238 and cases cited therein. *Leatherman*v. *Board of Comrs.*(1897), 148 Ind. 282, 47 N. E. 458; *Manns Bros. Boot etc. Co.*v. *Templeton*(1896), 149 Ind. 706, 44 N. E. 1108.

Also failure to serve a copy of appellant’s brief as required by Rule 2-19, prior to filing the same results in a dismissal of the appeal. *Indiana Trust & Savings Bank, Executor of Asplan, deceased*v. *Zapp*(1955), 126 Ind. App. 92, 130 N. E. 2d 329.

Appeal dismissed.

Bierly, Myers, Ryan and Kelley, JJ., concur.

NOTE. — Reported in 175 N. E. 2d 35.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-17-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,320,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,320,813
<PP&E>                                       1,883,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,204,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          306,486
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,897,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,204,410
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,818)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
v136496_10-2.htm


     

    EXHIBIT
10.2

    


    Compensation
of Outside Directors

    


    In
connection with a reduction in compensation payable to certain of the Company’s
employees, including its executive officers, at a meeting held on January 7,
2009, the Board of Directors of the Company approved a reduction of 10% to the
cash compensation of its non-employee directors effective as of January 19,
2009. Consequently, effective January 19, 2009 until the elimination of the
salary reduction for employees, the cash compensation payable to the outside
directors will be as follows:

    


    	
        the
  amount of the per meeting fee for in-person Board of Directors meetings will
  be $1,440;

      
	
        the
  amount of the per meeting fee for in-person Committee meetings will be
  $1,080;

      
	
        the
  amount of the per meeting fee payable for telephonic meetings of the Board of
  Directors or a Committee lasting one hour or less is fixed at 50% of the per
  meeting for a Board of Directors or Committee meeting, as applicable;
  and

      
	
        the
  amount of the compensation payable to the members of any Special Committee, if
  and when such a Committee is needed, will be $4,500 per month for the Special
  Committee Chairman, $2,250 per month for the Special Committee Vice-Chairman,
  and $1,800 per meeting for all members of the Special Committee. The
  additional compensation will be discontinued when any Special Committee
  project is suspended or concluded.

      


    In
addition, in the event that the compensation reduction is still in effect on
March 1, 2009, which is the commencement of the Company’s fiscal 2010 and the
time at which the annual cash retainers are paid to the non-employee directors,
the annual cash retainers will similarly be decreased, as follows:

    


    	
        the
  annual cash retainer payable for Company Board-level (as opposed to
  Committee-level) service will be $27,000;

      
	
        the
  annual cash retainer payable to the chairman of the Audit Committee will be
  $10,800; and

      
	
        the
  annual cash retainer payable to the chairman of the Compensation Committee
  will be $9,000.
Exhibit 10.1


Western Minerals Inc.

jjmcleod@xplornet.com







To:

Dafoe Corp.

1802 North Carson St., Suite 212

Carson City, NV  89701







Attention:  Mr. Kyle Beddome, President/Director







Invoice







Acquisition of the Vet 1-4 mineral claims, Esmeralda

County, Nevada USA

$3,500




Geological Report on the Vet 1-4 property

3,500




Total:

$7,000







Dated at Silver Springs, NV the 20th day of July, 2008







/s/ “James W. McLeod”




James W. McLeod

Consulting Geologist
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST

                           CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
            RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

      In connection with the Annual Report of Liberty Property Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify in connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, that based on my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY
-----------------------------------------------
William P. Hankowsky
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 7, 2006
#### Daniela CONNELLY, as parent and best friend of Kristen Britter, Appellant, v. SHANG HAI CHINESE RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, INC., Chin Lin and Kye Lin, Appellees.

No. 1D10-6312.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 2011.

John Wellington Wesley, Ft. Walton Beach, for Appellant.

Andrew A. Wood of Pleat & Perry, Des-tín, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Hickox v. Taylor,*933 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The appellant’s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction to Obtain Final Judgment, filed on January 21, 2011, is denied.

LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000921066
<NAME>                 FRESH 'N LITE INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>             US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,789,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,829,909
<PP&E>                                       8,281,506
<DEPRECIATION>                               (479,132)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,808,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          473,841
<BONDS>                                      5,206,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,568
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,724,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,808,328
<SALES>                                      1,740,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,030,533
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,461,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             244,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                334,637
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            227,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   227,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .036
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .036
        


</TABLE>
#### D. S. Findley v. J. F. & O. M. Love.

(No. 3312.)

Appeal from Baylor County.

Opinion by

Htjkt, J.

§ 736. *Agreement of counsel, not in writing, as to admission of evidence; enforcement of, not*error,, *when.*Before the trial of this cause, the counsel of the parties agreed to allow on the trial all testimony that would throw light on the transaction involved in *the*suit. This agreement was oral, but was not denied. On the trial, appellees by parol proved the contents of a written instrument, without accounting for the loss of such instrument. This evidence was material, and was objected to by appellant upon the ground that it was secondary. Appellees contended that it was admissible under said agreement, and appellant replied that said agreement, not *647being in writing, was not binding. The testimony was admitted, and the question as to the correctness of this action of the trial court is presented by bill of exception and is assigned as error for which the judgment, which was for appellees, should be reversed. *Held:*The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. In Williams v. Huling, 43 Tex. 113, it is said: “Although the court may not be required to enforce agreements unless in writing and signed by the parties or their attorneys, still it by no means follows that the court commits any error of which a party to such agreement may complain by the exercise of its discretionary powers, so as to prevent their obtaining an unfair advantage by the violation of such agreements.”

May 27, 1885.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                REGARDING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements (Nos. 33-84264, 333-15877, 333-51681,
333-79579, 333-102672 and 333-110110) on Form S-8 and the registration statement
(No. 333-106615) on Form S-3 of Northfield Laboratories Inc., we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 5, 2004 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(C) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered to be a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,




/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 12, 2004
#### STATE ex rel. Michael D. TURNER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0283.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Turner, Michael D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 12-93-0388; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1674.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

WEIMER, J., recused.
Exhibit 10.4


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”), is made on this 30th day of December, 2008, by and between Nature’s
Sunshine Products, Inc., a Utah Corporation, having its principal place of
business in Provo, Utah (“the Company” or “NSP”) and Bryant J. Yates (“Executive”).


 


The Company and Executive have entered into
an Employment Agreement dated December 21, 2007.


 


In order to ensure that such Employment
Agreement complies with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, the Company
and Executive agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.               Section 4
shall be amended by adding the following at the end thereof:


 


Each reimbursement must be made no later than the end of the Company’s
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the expense was incurred.  All such reimbursements shall be made no
later than the end of the calendar year in which the Executive separates from
service with the Company, or if later, the following March 15th.  The amount of reimbursements in any calendar
year shall not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other
taxable year.


 


2.               Section 5.1.3
shall be amended by adding the following at the end thereof:


 


In the event that Executive is required to include benefits received
from the health plan in his or her taxable income, the Company will reimburse
Executive for up to $6,000 of the tax liability.  Such reimbursement will be made no later than
the end of the calendar year following the year in which the amount is includible
in the Executive’s income.


 


3.               The
last sentence of Section 5.5 shall be replaced with the following:


 


“Incapacity” shall mean that the Executive is unable to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected
to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, or that the
Executive has been determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security
Administration.


 


In addition, the parties agree that any other
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall be interpreted, if possible, so as
to avoid a violation of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A.


 

















 


Except to the extent modified by this
Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.


 


 


	
   

  	
  NATURE’S
  SUNSHINE PRODUCTS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  \s\ Douglas Faggioli

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  CEO/President

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BRYANT J. YATES

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  \s\ Bryant J. Yates

  
	
   

  	
  Executive

  
				



 


2
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 15, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14930

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-00158-CR-LSC-RRA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARL RAY BURRESS,

a.k.a. Carl Burris,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(April 15, 2009)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Carl Ray Burress, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduced sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On

appeal, Burress, pro se, argues that the district court erred in denying his motion

for a sentence reduction because it erroneously found that over 4.5 kilograms of

crack cocaine were attributed to him at sentencing, when, in fact, he only was held

responsible for 1.5 kilograms. The government concedes this error and asserts that

the case should be remanded.

“In a proceeding to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), [this

Court] review[s] de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the scope

of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. White, 305 F.3d

1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court may modify a term of imprisonment

“in the case of a defendant who [was] sentenced to a term of imprisonment based

on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The parties agree, and the record demonstrates, that the district court erred in

finding Burress ineligible for a sentence reduction because it erroneously

determined that he was held responsible for over 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine,

although the original sentencing transcript demonstrates that he was held

responsible only for at least 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. Based on that amount

2
of crack cocaine, Amendment 706 lowered his offense level from 38 to 36 and,

correspondingly, lowered his guideline range, rendering him eligible for

§ 3582(c)(2) relief. Thus, we vacate the district court’s denial order and remand

this case for the district court to exercise its discretion in determining whether to

grant Burress a sentence reduction.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            2,221,582
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       601,230
<ALLOWANCES>                        (28,870)
<INVENTORY>                         209,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  3,088,638
<PP&E>                            1,262,314
<DEPRECIATION>                   (1,007,869)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    4,151,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,765,991
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                         13,726,492
<OTHER-SE>                      (11,341,187)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      4,151,296
<SALES>                           4,636,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  4,636,401
<CGS>                               557,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       557,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  4,719,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (52,332)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (588,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (588,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (588,517)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.09)



</TABLE>