alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

                                MAXXAM INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS)
                   PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE

        (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>

                                                                                Years Ended December 31,       
                                                                         -------------------------------------
                                                                             1995         1994         1993   
                                                                         -----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                                                      <C>           <C>          <C>
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding
     during each year                                                     9,376,703    9,376,703    9,376,703 
Common equivalent shares attributable to stock options and
     convertible securities                                                  82,590       71,175       80,380 
                                                                         -----------   ----------   ----------
     Total common and common equivalent shares                            9,459,293    9,447,878    9,457,083 
                                                                         ===========   ==========   ==========

Income (loss) before extraordinary item and cumulative effect of
   changes in accounting principles                                      $     57.5    $  (116.7)   $  (131.9)
Extraordinary item                                                                -         (5.4)       (50.6)
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles                             -            -       (417.7)
                                                                         -----------   ----------   ----------
Net income (loss)                                                        $     57.5    $  (122.1)   $  (600.2)
                                                                         ===========   ==========   ==========

Per common and common equivalent share:
     Income (loss) before extraordinary item and cumulative effect of
          changes in accounting principles                               $     6.08    $  (12.35)   $  (13.95)
     Extraordinary item                                                           -         (.57)       (5.35)
     Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles                        -            -       (44.17)
                                                                         -----------   ----------   ----------
     Net income (loss)                                                   $     6.08    $  (12.92)   $  (63.47)
                                                                         ===========   ==========   ==========

</TABLE>
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Email Address: 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel" are you 

a Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this $ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this $ourt’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 &.%.$#§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/ 

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

Revised 8/1/2015 

Alhummza Stokes, v. City of

Chicago, et al., 20-cv-4716

Ronald Watts

Zachary A. Pestine

Johnson & Bell, LTD

33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700

Chicago, Illinois 60603

6324485 312-372-0770

PestineZ@jbltd.com

February 15, 2021

Zachary A. Pestine

Case: 1:20-cv-04716 Document #: 28 Filed: 02/15/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:74
10098.

#### Pritchard *v.*Mayor and Alderman of Savannah.

Decided November 16, 1918.

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court—Judge Meldrim. June 27, 1918.

*Robert L. Colding,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert J, Travis, David S. Atkinson,*contra

Harwell, J.

There being some evidence to support the finding of the recorder, his answer to the writ of certiorari being untraversed, and no error of law being assigned, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.. See *Miles*v. *Savannah,*ante, 20 (97 S. E. 275).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
IB 

Union Calendar No. 4

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 397

[Report No. 108–6] 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 

a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. SHIMKUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

FEBRUARY 4, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT. 

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

6 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
2

•HR 397 RH 

1 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com2 mission project numbered 11214, the Commission may, at 

3 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea4 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili5 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and 

6 the Commission’s procedures under that section—

7 (1) reinstate the license for the construction of 

8 the project as of the effective date of the surrender 

9 of the license; and 

10 (2) extend the time period during which the li11 censee is required to commence the construction of 

12 the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond 

13 the date that is 4 years after the date of issuance 

14 of the license. 

Union Calendar No. 4

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 397

[Report No. 108–6] 

A BILL

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in 

the State of Illinois. 

FEBRUARY 4, 2003

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
#### Peter W. Estill *v.*Jesse Cobb, etc.

Fraud — Evidence.

The evidence was held to show that the purchaser' of mules, who knew that he was insolvent at the time of the purchase, did not huy them with the intention of not paying for them.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 5, 1873

*Burnam, Turner, Smith, for appellant.*

*Wm. Chenault, for appellee. .*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The proof in this, case does not sufficiently sustain the charge of fraud. It may be that Jesse Cobb had misled Smith as to his solvency, but it does not appear that it was done for the purpose of inducing him to vouch to Estill as to his ability to pay for the mules. It may also be true that Cobb knew he was insolvent when he bought the mules, but it does not necessarily follow that he .did not intend to pay for them. He may have believed that he would be able, finally to extricate himself from: his difficulties and pa,y all his debts. The fact that he kept the mules on his place, in Madison County a few miles from where Estill lived for over four months, shows that it was not his object to buy them on credit, and then convert them, into money, and refuse to pay for them'. He seems to have given up everything to his creditors when he made the deed of assignment for their benefit.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### BICKET v. McLEAN SECURITIES, INC.

No. 1P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 548

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
Order Form (01/2005) 

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge 

or Magistrate Judge Clerk=s Office Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge Norgle 

CASE NUMBER 20-cv-5083 DATE 1/27/2021 

CASE

TITLE

Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. Better Plans, Inc. 

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Default is entered pursuant to FRCP 55(a) as to Better Plans, Inc. for failure to answer or otherwise plead. 

00:00 

 Courtroom Deputy 

Initials: 

PH 

Case: 1:20-cv-05083 Document #: 9 Filed: 01/27/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:39
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 23

- 0388 LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 6786

_____________________________
J EROME M ABRY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. London M. Kite , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender
, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General
, and Zac Lawton, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

December 12, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
E ISNAUGLE , B OATWRIGHT , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

May 17, 2004

Stephen C. Farrell
8 Minute Man Lane
Lexington, MA 02421

                      Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement

Dear Steve:

This letter agreement serves to further amend the Employment Agreement dated as
of September 1, 2000, by and between you and PolyMedica Corporation (the
"Company"), as amended by certain letter agreements dated as of April 16, 2001;
September 24, 2001; October 12, 2001; May 31, 2002; July 15, 2002; February 5,
2003; August 29, 2003; November 3, 2003; and January 30, 2004 (together, the
"Employment Agreement").

1.    Section 3.1 Salary shall be amended as follows:

      The Base Salary as defined in Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement
      shall be increased to $362,160, effective April 1, 2004.

2.    Section 3.6 Severance Pay shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following in lieu thereof:

      Section 3.6 Severance Pay: If at any time during the term of this
      Agreement (including any Extended Employment Period), the Executive's
      employment is terminated by the Company without cause (i.e., other than
      pursuant to Section 3.5 or Section 4 hereof) or the Company does not renew
      or extend this Agreement without cause (i.e. other than consistent with
      Section 3.5 or Section 4 hereof), and subject to the Executive's execution
      and non-revocation of a severance agreement and release drafted by and
      satisfactory to counsel for the Company, the Company shall continue to pay
      Executive at his then current Base Salary for the remainder of the
      Employment Period or for EIGHTEEN months, whichever is longer (the
      "Severance Period"). Neither party shall be entitled to any compensation
      or claim for good will or other loss suffered by reason of termination of
      this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company's obligations
      under this Section 3.6 shall cease immediately upon the payment by the
      Company to the Executive of the lump sum payment described in Section
      4.2(a)(i) of the Executive Retention Agreement, dated as of March 28,
      2002, as may be amended from time to time, by and between the Company and
      the Executive.

If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate your agreement by signing
a copy of this letter agreement and returning it to the undersigned.

                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     /s/ Samuel L. Shanaman
                                                     ---------------------------

                                                     Samuel L. Shanaman
                                                     Chairman and Chief
                                                     Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

/s/ Stephen C. Farrell
----------------------
Stephen C. Farrell
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**179 CAF 14-00167**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF SEAN G. TRASK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

SUZANNE G. BUCK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

------------------------------------------ CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 24.)

JULIE B. HEWITT, MAYVILLE, FOR APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Judith S. Claire, J.), entered October 17, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order dismissed the objection of the Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services and affirmed the order of the Support Magistrate.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs ( see Matter of Chautauqua County Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v Matteson , ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 20, 2015]).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7403
DEAN BRINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-611-HC-H) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brinson v. Easley , No. CA-98-611-HC-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3339

_____________________________
N ASTASHA H ART , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. July 12, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice Kaye Brower, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ash ley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.1


 


August 23, 2005


 


Great Plains Ethanol, LLC

Board of Directors

27716 - 462nd Avenue

Chancellor, SE) 57015

Attention:      Darrin Ihnen, President


 


Re:  Proposal for
Engineering Study, Feasibility Study, and Permit Application.


 


Broin and Associates submits this proposal to do preliminary
engineering, feasibility, and permit work for a proposed expansion at the Great
Plains Ethanol fuel ethanol plant in Chancellor, South Dakota.


 


The scope of work is as follows:


 


1.                                       Provide an engineering report giving a
preliminary engineering analysis of the expandability of the main areas of the
plant specifically; specifically: corn handling and storage, milling,
slurrying, fermentation, distillation, sieve, evaporator, centrifuge, DDG
drying, DDG storage and handling, ethanol storage and handling, boiler,
cooling, miscellaneous mechanical, water, wastewater.


2.                                       Research the capabilities of the existing
utilities providing service to the plant to handle the increased demands
created by the expansion, and evaluate the options that are available.


3.                                       Determine and recommend the appropriate
size to expand the plant to 110 million gallon per year range.


4.                                       Provide a preliminary cost estimate for
completing the necessary work to expand the plant to the size determined in 3.


5.                                       Provide an economic analysis of the
expansion of the Great Plains plant based on the size determined in 3.and the
cost determined in 4.


6.                                       Prepare and submit an air permit
application for the proposed expansion to the SDDENR.


 


Broin & Associates will complete the work in bullets 1 through 5
within six months of acceptance of this proposal.  Bullet 6 will be completed within 9 months of
the acceptance of this proposal. The work will be completed for a fixed fee of
$50,000.  $35,000 will be due and payable
following completion of bullets 1 through 5. 
The balance will be due and payable following the completion of bullet
6.


 


 





















 


If Great Plains Ethanol decides to proceed with an expansion as
determined by this proposal, Broin and Associates will deduct the $50,000 for
this work from the cost of a contract to engineer and construct the expansion
of the plant.


 


Please consider this proposal at your earliest convenience and feel
free to contact us with any questions. We look forward to this opportunity to
continue our excellent working relationship.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Mark Melander

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Mark Melander, Chief Operating Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acceptance of Proposal

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Darrin Ihnen

  	
   

  	
  Date: August 23, 2005

  
	
  Great Plains Ethanol
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-5068

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff EMOJI COMPANY 

GmbH hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

18 KASAAS

The respective Defendant has not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 13, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-05068 Document #: 60 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3165
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on January 13, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-05068 Document #: 60 Filed: 01/13/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3166
#### STATE v. JONES

No. 196P97

Case below: 123 N.C.App. 355

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 June 1997.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 414

To deem the nondisclosure of employer-owned life insurance coverage of 

employees an unfair trade practice under the Federal Trade Commission 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To deem the nondisclosure of employer-owned life insurance 

coverage of employees an unfair trade practice under 

the Federal Trade Commission Act, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Life Insurance Em5 ployee Notification Act’’. 
2

HR 414 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF EMPLOYER-OWNED LIFE INSUR2 ANCE COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES. 

3 (a) WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIRED.—Except as pro4 vided in subsection (b), not later than 30 days after the 

5 date on which an employer purchases an employer-owned 

6 insurance policy on the life of an employee (or a spouse 

7 or dependent of the employee), the employer shall provide 

8 to each employee for whom the employer carries such a 

9 policy a written notice that contains the following informa10 tion: 

11 (1) A statement that the employer carries an 

12 employer-owned insurance policy on the life of the 

13 employee. 

14 (2) The identity of the insurance carrier of the 

15 policy. 

16 (3) The benefit amount of the policy. 

17 (4) The name of the beneficiary of the policy. 

18 (b) TRANSITION.—

19 (1) NOTICE TO FORMER COVERED EMPLOY20 EES.—For former employees covered by an insur21 ance policy described in subsection (a), for any 

22 length of time, from January 1, 1985, until the date 

23 of enactment of this Act, the employer shall provide 

24 the notice required under that subsection not later 

25 than 1 year after such date of enactment. 
3

HR 414 IH 

1 (2) NOTICE OF EXISTING COVERED EMPLOY2 EES.—For employees covered by an insurance policy 

3 described in subsection (a) as of the date of enact4 ment of this Act, the employer shall provide the no5 tice required under that subsection not later than 90 

6 days after such date of enactment. 

7 (c) ENFORCEMENT.—A violation of this section con8 stitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair 

9 or deceptive act or practice under section 5(a)(1) of the 

10 Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)). 

11 (d) EMPLOYER-OWNED INSURANCE POLICY DE12 FINED.—The term ‘‘employer-owned insurance policy’’ 

13 means an insurance policy purchased by the employer for 

14 the benefit of a person other than the individual who is 

15 the subject of the policy (or other than a person des16 ignated by such individual).

Æ