alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephens *&*Segar v. J. E. Bridge.

(No. 6225.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

W. T. Strange and T. T. Holloway, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 82. *Distress warrant; damages for unlawfully and illegally suing out; charge of court.*Stephens & Segar *122were landlords of appellee, and sued out a distress warrant on a claim for rent, and caused the same to he levied upon products of the leased premises. Defendant denied that he owed any rent, and reconvened in damages for the wrongful suing out of the writ. The cause was tried by jury, who returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find for the defendant in the sum of $200.” On this verdict the court rendered judgment in defendant’s favor against plaintiffs and their sureties on appeal bond for the sum of $200. The charge of the court was in the following language: “If you believe from the testimony that at the time plaintiffs sued out the writ the claim for rent was then due and unpaid, you will find for the plaintiffs the amount of rent due on said contract as established by the evidence, and a foreclosure of the lien on the property. But if you believe from the evidence that at the time said writ was sued out that the rent under said contract was not due, or that the amount due up to that time had been paid to plain tiffs by defendant, then on the question of rent you will find for defendant. In regard to the plea in reconvention you are charged that, if you believe that the said writ was illegally and unjustly sued out, you will find for the defendant such amount that you believe he has been damaged for unlawfully and illegally suing out such writ, not to exceed $200, if you find that such writ was unlawfully and illegally sued out; otherwise you will find for plaintiffs on said plea. ” The charge requested by the appellants was as follows: “If you find that rent was due the plaintiffs at the time of suing out the writ, the suing out of it was not illegal, and the defendant cannot recover damages under his plea.” This was refused. We are of opinion that this requested charge was properly refused. The charge as given submitted the issue in the case.

April 19, 1890.

Affirmed.
Order entered July 19, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00210-CV

KIRK LAUNIUS, Appellant

V.

DIANA FLORES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING 

OFFICER, CHAIR OF TRUSTEES, OF DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-08429

ORDER

By order dated June 16, 2021, we granted appellant’s agreed motion to 

permit submission of part of the clerk’s record by stipulation and instructed him to 

submit, by July 6, 2021, a flash drive containing appellant’s original petition, 

amended petition, second amended petition, and third amended petition. As of 

today’s date, appellant has not submitted the flash drive. Accordingly, we 

ORDER appellant to submit the flash drive WITHIN TEN DAYS of the date of 
this order. We caution appellant that if he fails to comply with the order WITHIN 

TEN DAYS, the appeal may be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Amendment,dated January 7,2009,to the Agreement and Plan of Merger



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER 
 Amendment, dated as of January 7, 2009 (this
“Amendment”), to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Agreement”), dated as of January 5, 2009, by and among Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Parent”), BTB Purchaser Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct, wholly-owned Subsidiary of Parent (“Merger Sub”), and Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.3 of the Agreement, Parent, Merger Sub and the Company wish to amend the terms of the Agreement as provided
in Section I below; 
 WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 SECTION I 
 AMENDMENT 
 The first sentence of
Section 1.1(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 
 The initial expiration date of the Offer shall be 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the 45th calendar day following
the commencement of the Offer (determined pursuant to Rule 14d-1(g)(3) under the Exchange Act). 
 SECTION II 
 MISCELLANEOUS 
 1. No Other
Amendments; Effectiveness. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. 
 2. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless of the laws
that might otherwise govern under applicable principles of conflict of laws thereof. 
 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be
executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other parties. 
 [signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., BTB Purchaser Inc. and Indevus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. have each caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized. 
  

			
	ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS INC.
		
	By:	 	 /S/    CAROLINE B. MANOGUE

	Name:	 	Caroline B. Manogue
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
	
	BTB PURCHASER INC.
		
	By:	 	 /S/    CAROLINE B. MANOGUE

	Name:	 	Caroline B. Manogue
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary
	
	INDEVUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /S/    MICHAEL W. ROGERS

	Name:	 	Michael W. Rogers
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


  

 2
#### The STATE of Florida, etc., Appellant, v. Carolina LEYVA, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 2011.

*1138Stephen D. Hurm, General Counsel, and Jason Helfant, Assistant General Counsel, DHSMV — Legal Office, Lake Worth, for appellant.

Robert S. Reiff, Miami, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, SHEPHERD, and SALTER, JJ.

SHEPHERD, J.

The State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appeals a circuit court order to the Department to enforce a subpoena issued, pursuant to section 322.2615(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), to Miami-Dade County Police Officer Robert McGrath to appear at a formal review administrative hearing requested by Carolina Leyva to contest the suspension of her driver’s license for driving under the influence of alcohol. We reverse the order under review.

The procedure to enforce ’noncompliance by a witness with the subpoena issued pursuant to section 322.2615(6)(b) appears in the next succeeding subsection and reads as follows:

> (c) A party may seek enforcement of a subpoena under paragraph (b) by filing a petition for enforcement in the circuit court of the judicial circuit in which the person failing to comply with the subpoena resides. A failure to comply with an order of the court shall result in a finding of contempt of court.

> However, a person is not in contempt while a subpoena is being challenged.

§ 322.2615(6)(c) Fla. Stat. (2010) (emphasis added). A plain reading of this subsection of the Florida Statutes reveals that enforcement of noncompliance with a subpoena directing a witness to appear at an administrative formal review hearing is contemplated “in the circuit court of the judicial circuit in which the person failing to comply with the subpoena resides” by “an order of the court.” The natural workings of such proceedings are coercive in nature and rooted in the power of contempt. The power to hold a person in *1139contempt is indisputably a judicial power. *Ducksworth v. Boyer,*125 So.2d 844, 845 (Fla.1960). Separation of powers principles prohibit a court from delegating or assigning the judicial power to a coordinate branch of the government in this state. *See*Article II, § 3, Fla. Const. (2010); *Perry v. State,*513 So.2d 254, 255 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987) (finding a trial court should not delegate its responsibility of determining restitution and requiring its payment to a nonjudicial officer); *In re Alkires Estate,*144 Fla. 606, 623, 198 So. 475, 482 (Fla.1940) (supplemental op.) (“The judicial power ... [is] not delegable and cannot be abdicated in whole or in part by the courts.”). The doctrine is one that is followed strictly in this state. *See Askew v. Cross Key Waterways,*372 So.2d 913, 924 (Fla.1978) (finding that the Florida Constitution expressly limits one branch of government from exercising any powers belonging to either of the other branches of government).

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order under review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 11

                           CODA MUSIC TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                              Quarter Ended September 30,            Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                                1996               1995                1996                  1995
<S>                                                         <C>                 <C>              <C>                  <C>   
   NET LOSS                                                 $ (593,379)         $ (257,873)      $ (1,618,595)        $ (1,093,346)
                                                             ==========          ==========       ============         ============


   WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON
    AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING:
         Common Shares Outstanding(1)                        4,326,867           4,218,636          4,291,536            3,488,738
         Common Stock Equivalents calculated
           pursuant to Securities and Exchange
           Commission Staff Bulletin No. 83(2)                       -                   -                  -              114,789
                                                             ----------          ----------       ------------         ------------


   WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND
     COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING                    4,326,867           4,218,636          4,291,536            3,603,527
                                                             ==========          ==========       ============         ============

   NET LOSS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE          $    (0.14)         $    (0.06)      $      (0.38)        $      (0.30)
                                                             ==========          ==========       ============         ============

</TABLE>


1    Reflects  the effect of  conversion  of Series A and  Series B  Convertible
     Preferred  Stock to common stock and a 1-for-2  reverse stock split for all
     periods presented.

2    Reflects the issuance of Series B Convertible  Preferred Stock, issuance of
     common  stock for  services,  stock  options  granted,  warrants  issued to
     purchase  Series B  Convertible  Preferred  Stock  and  warrants  issued to
     purchase common stock within the twelve month period prior to the Company's
     initial public offering at a price less than the public offering price.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

 

Dated: August 12, 2009

 

|   | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall_____________ |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00900-CR

Style: Raymond Lee Cavitt

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: April 16, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 3, 2014

Number of extensions granted: 2 Current Due date: April 21, 2014

Date Requested: May 6, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 6, 2014

 No further extensions of time will be granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The motion is granted. Appellant’s brief shall be filed no later than May 6, 2014.

No further extensions of time for the filing of appellant’s brief will be granted.

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack



Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: April 22, 2014
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ David M. BronsonDavid
M. Bronson Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer

November 10, 2004
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three months ended
                                                     June 30,
                                                 2000         1999
                                              ----------   ----------
<S>                                        <C>          <C>
Net income as reported . . . . . . . . .      $  870,000   $1,016,000
                                              ==========   ==========

BASIC:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. . . . .       5,070,167    4,800,405
                                               =========    =========

  Basic net income per share . . . . . .           $0.17        $0.21
                                               =========    =========


DILUTED:
  Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. . . . .       5,070,167   4,800,405
    Common stock equivalents from
      options computed on the
      treasury-stock method using
      the average fair market
      value of common stock
      outstanding during the
      period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         221,630     219,530
                                               ---------   ---------
    Shares used in the
      computation. . . . . . . . . . . .       5,291,797   5,019,935
                                               =========   =========

  Diluted net income per share . . . . .           $0.16       $0.20
                                               =========   =========
</TABLE>

All number of shares data has been retroactively restated to reflect a 3-for-2
stock split distributed September 23, 1999.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air Force100430-F-JZ026-294.JPG
            SCOTT M. ANDERSONScott M. Anderson, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is the Executive Director, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. The command comprises of approximately 30,000 space professionals worldwide. He assists the commander in organizing, training and equipping mission-ready forces; and acquiring and delivering space capabilities for North American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Strategic Command and the other functional and geographic combatant commands with missile warning, positioning, navigation and timing and communications. The command manages a global network of satellite command and control, communications, missile warning and space launch facilities, and is responsible for space system development and acquisition. As the command’s senior civilian, Mr. Anderson also advises the commander on development of the more than 7,500 civilians in the workforce, as well as labor relations.
Mr. Anderson was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in 2010, and assigned as Deputy Director of Logistics and Engineering, U.S. Central Command, MacDill AFB, Florida.**EDUCATION**
1978 Bachelor of Science degree, University of Maryland, College Park
2001 Master of Arts degree in national security and strategic studies, Naval War College, Newport, R.I.**CAREER CHRONOLOGY**
1. 2010 - 2014, Deputy Director, Logistics and Engineering, U.S. Central Command, MacDill AFB, Fla.
2. 2014 - 2015, Director, Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson AFB, Colo.
3. 2015 - present, Executive Director, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, Peterson AFB, Colo.**AWARDS AND HONORS**
Legion of Merit
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award
(Current as of September 2018)Department of the Air Force Logo
Exhibit 4(l)


               Amendment No. 2 to Investment Advisory Agreement

This is Amendment No. 2, dated as of December 31, 2003, to the Investment
Advisory Agreement dated as of the 13th day of January, 2000 (the "Agreement")
by and between Sentinel Group Funds, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a
registered investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940
("SGF"), one series of which is the Sentinel Flex Cap Opportunity Fund
(hereinafter called the "Fund"), and Sentinel Advisors Company (herein called
"SAC"), a Vermont general partnership, having its principal office at National
Life Drive, Montpelier, Vermont 05604.


                                  WITNESSETH:


     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, SAC currently acts as investment
adviser to the Fund; and

     WHEREAS, in light of SAC's terminating the subadvisory arrangement for
the Fund with Fred Alger Management, Inc., the parties have agreed to amend
the provision of the Agreement relating to SAC's fee for providing service as
such investment adviser.


     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
herein contained, SGF and SAC agree as follows:


1. SGF and SAC hereby agree that section 7 of the Agreement shall be amended
and restated in its entirety as follows:

        7. For the services to be rendered by SAC hereunder, SGF shall pay
        to SAC a monthly fee, in arrears, equal to:

        0.75% per annum of the first $500 million of the average daily net
        asset value of the Fund, as determined in accordance with the
        provisions of the Prospectus then constituting part of the
        Registration Statement then in effect under the Securities Act of
        1933, and 0.70% per annum of such average daily net asset value of
        the Fund in excess of $500 million.

The fee change will take effect as of the date that fees cease to accrue to
Fred Alger Management, Inc., under the subadvisory arrangement for the Fund.

2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.

                             Sentinel Group Funds, Inc.


                             By:  /s/ Thomas H. MacLeay
                                ----------------------------------------------
                                      Thomas H. MacLeay
                                      Chairman

                             Sentinel Advisors Company


                             By: /s/ Rodney A. Buck
                                ----------------------------------------------
                                 Rodney A. Buck
                                 Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF JOURNAL REGISTER COMPANY

The following is a list of the corporations that are subsidiaries of Journal Register Company, a Delaware corporation. If indented, the corporation listed is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporation under which it is listed. The names of all subsidiaries more than two levels removed from Journal Register Company have been omitted and are included in the number of owned subsidiaries of their most immediate direct or indirect parent company listed below.

Name of Corporation


State of
Incorporation


Number of Owned
Subsidiaries (Direct and Indirect)Journal Register East, Inc.


Delaware




39Chanry Media, Inc.


Delaware




8Register Company, Inc.


Delaware




—JRC.com, LLC


Delaware




—


---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2004 (the  "Report") of TF Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company") as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  we, Kent C.
Lufkin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart,  Executive
Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer  (Principal  Accounting  Officer),
hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial position and results of operations of
          the Company.






Date: August 13, 2004                 /s/ Kent C. Lufkin
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Kent C. Lufkin
                                      President and CEO
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)



Date: August 13, 2004                 /s/ Dennis R. Stewart
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Dennis R. Stewart
                                      Executive Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      (Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)