alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION (CANADA), 

NOVA CHEMICALS INC. (DELAWARE),

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1257

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-01601-LPS, Chief 

Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DONALD ROBERT DUNNER, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by 

MARK J. FELDSTEIN, DARREL CHRISTOPHER KARL. 

HARRY J. ROPER, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, 

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

AARON A. BARLOW, PAUL DAVID MARGOLIS, ANTON R.

VALUKAS; WILLIAM ADAMS, RAYMOND N. NIMROD,
 

KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CLELAND B. WELTON, II, Quinn 

Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 June 9, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 313

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

' IN RE: ROBERT C. MORRIS, RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
' MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Robert C. Mor ris complains that the trial court signed an order setting aside a default judgment it granted against three of the four defendants Morris named in his lawsuit. He argues that the default judgment was final and therefore the trial court lacked plenary pow er to set it aside. Accordingly, he urges that the order setting asi de the default judgment is void and the trial court abused its discretion by signing it. Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P. , 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). But mandamus is available to challenge a void order, even if the order was appeala ble and the party requesting relief failed to pursue an appeal. Dikeman
v. Snell , 490 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. 1973); see also In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 SW.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (when order is void, relator need not demonstrate inadequ acy of appellate remedy). Here, the default judgment was granted on February 4, 2010, but did not dispose of all parties in Morris’s suit. A default judgment that fails to dispose of all parties can be final only if the “intent to finally dispose of the case” is “unequivocally expressed in
the words of the order itself.” See In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of McAllen, Inc. , 167 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp.
, 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001)). The record in this proc eed ing does not include a copy
of the written order granting the default judgment. Therefore, we are unable to address2

Morris’s contention that the order was final. Without a determination that the order granting the default judgment was final, we cannot conclude that the trial court lacked plenary power to set aside the default judgment. Consequently, Morris has not established that the order setting aside the default judgment is void. Absent a showing that order setting aside the default judgment is v oid, Morris has not established that the trial court abused its discretion in signing the order. Therefore, he has not satisfied the first prerequisite to mandamus. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is denied

. Opinion delivered October 20
, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00389-CR

____________________

IN RE BRETT W. LIGON, MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY, AND BARBARA ADAMICK, DISTRICT CLERK FOR 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER 

Brett W. Ligon, Montgomery County District Attorney, and Barbara 

Adamick, District Clerk for Montgomery County, Texas, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. The State of Texas, acting through Brett W. Ligon in his capacity as 

the District Attorney for Montgomery County, Texas, is a party to a criminal case, 

Cause No. 13-01-00685 CR, The State of Texas v. Leon Davis. Barbara Adamick, 

in her capacity as the District Clerk for Montgomery County, Texas, is a non-party 

affected by a trial court order in Cause No. 13-01-00685 CR. Relators seek a writ

compelling the Honorable Kelly W. Case, Judge of the 9th District Court, to vacate 
2

its August 16, 2013 order requiring the District Clerk to provide partially redacted 

copies of juror information questionnaires to an expert retained by the real party in 

interest, Leon Davis. We note our jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. See 

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). 

Relators allege that prejudice will result if the documents are produced 

before the issues raised in the petition for writ of mandamus can be resolved.

The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It 

is ORDERED that the trial court’s order of August 16, 2013 in Cause No. 13-01-

00685 CR is STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of the relators as a condition to 

any relief herein granted.

The response of the real party in interest, Leon Davis, is due September 6, 

2013, at 5:00 p.m.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.

ORDER ENTERED August 27, 2013.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Witnessing an Evolution - The NICE 

Framework and Its Role in Building a Better Cybersecurity Workforce

Date(s): December 15, 2021 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: In this webinar you will hear about recent and upcoming developments with the NICE Framework as it 

continues to improve and grow into a tool that can be used both broadly and in unique, individual settings for a variety of 

purposes. You will hear from speakers who will paint a picture of how you might use the NICE Framework to meet your own 

needs while engaging with a community of users in order to meet a common goal -- a diverse, prepared, and effective 

cybersecurity workforce. Webinar attendees will hear presentations from: 

• Dr. Yair Levy, Professor of Information Systems and Cybersecurity, Director, Center for Information Protection, 

Education, and Research (CIPhER), College of Computing and Engineering, Nova Southeastern University (NSU) 

• Steven Graham, Senior Vice President, EC-Council

• Karen Wetzel, NICE Framework Manager, National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Danielle Santos, Manager, Communications and Operations, National Initiative for 

 Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| November 12, 2008 |   | By: /s/ | David A. Wheat                                                                                         |
|-------------------|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Date)            |   |    | David A. Wheat

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

  |

 

 

 

 

----
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
 
   
            COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS (LOSS) TO FIXED CHARGES
    
   
                       THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
    
 
   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             PRO FORMA
                                                                  --------------------------------
                                                                   AS ADJUSTED     AS ADJUSTED FOR
                                                                  FOR THE EQUITY   THE EQUITY AND
                                                      ACTUAL         OFFERING      DEBT OFFERINGS
                                                    -----------   --------------   ---------------
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>              <C>
Earnings:
  Net loss........................................  $(8,395,214)  $(191,086,302)    $(197,705,052)
  Add: Fixed charges..............................    4,669,079       7,689,781        14,308,531
                                                    -----------   -------------     -------------
                                                     (3,726,135)   (183,396,521)     (183,396,521)
Fixed charges:
  Interest in indebtedness........................    4,951,366       7,848,284        14,285,784
  Amortization of debt discount and debt issuance
     costs........................................      185,247         309,031           490,281
  Interest portion of rental and lease expense....           --              --                --
                                                    -----------   -------------     -------------
                                                      5,136,613       8,157,315        14,776,065
Deficiency of earnings available to cover fixed
  charges.........................................  $(8,862,748)  $(191,553,836)    $(198,172,586)
                                                    ===========   =============     =============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                              MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                  EXHIBIT 21

                    LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

   The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Maytag Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, as of December 31, 2001.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          State or Country
                                                          of Organization
               Corporate Name                             ---------------
     <S>                                                  <C>
     Maytag Appliances Sales Company.....................  Delaware
     Maytag Holdings, Inc................................  Delaware
     Dixie-Narco, Inc....................................  Delaware
     Amana Financial Services, Inc.......................  Delaware
     Amana Finance (Partnership) (50%)...................  Illinois
     Maytag Foreign Sales Corporation....................  Virgin Islands
     The Hoover Company..................................  Delaware
     The Hoover Company (Sales)..........................  Delaware
     The Hoover General, LLC.............................  Delaware
     The Hoover Limited, LLC.............................  Delaware
     Hoover Company I LP.................................  Delaware
     Maytag International, Inc...........................  Delaware
     Maharashtra Investment, Inc.........................  Delaware
     Maytag Mexico Appliance Products, S. de R.L de C.V..  Mexico
     Maytag Mexico Administration, S. de R.L. de C.V.....  Mexico
     Jade Products Company...............................  Delaware
     Maytag Comercial, S.de R.L. de C.V..................  Mexico
     Maytag Servicios, S.de R.L. de C.V..................  Mexico
     Hoover Holdings Inc.................................  Delaware
     Juver Industrial S.A. de C.V........................  Mexico
     Maytag Limited......................................  Canada
     Maytag Europe Ltd...................................  United Kingdom
     Maytag (Australia) Pty., Ltd........................  Australia
     Maytag Worldwide N.V................................  Netherlands
                                                           Antilles
     AERA (Hong Kong) PTE LTD............................  Singapore
     Maytag International Investments, Inc...............  Delaware
     Maytag I.I., Inc. (1-6).............................  Delaware
     Maytag International Investments B.V. (I-VI)........  Netherlands
     Hefei Rongshida Plastic Rubber Co. Ltd. (50.5%).....  China
     Hefei Rongshida Washing Machine Ltd. (50.5%)........  China
     Hefei Rongshida Motor Co. Ltd. (50.5%)..............  China
     Hefei Rongshida Refrigerator Co. Ltd. (50.5%).......  China
     Hefei Rongshida Mold Co. Ltd. (50.5%)...............  China
     Hefei Rongshida Daily Use Appliance Co. Ltd. (50.5%)  China
     Anvil Technologies LLC (33.77%).....................  Delaware
</TABLE>
--------

NOTE: Ownership in subsidiaries is 100% unless otherwise indicated.

Other subsidiaries in the aggregate would not constitute a significant
subsidiary.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Sankaran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology
Holdings, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 19, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    DAVID M. SANKARAN                                                                      
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | David M. Sankaran                                                                             
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
March 2005 

Ink Jet Cartridge Labeling, Is Count Enough? 

By Tom Coleman 

Recent questions concerning terms used to label ink jet cartridges has prompted an 

analysis of the issue. While most ink jet labels indicate “net content” in terms of count 

only, labeling requirements note additional information should be provided in the form of 

liquid measure. 

The model weights and measures law contains several relevant sections that apply to ink 

cartridges. “Method of sale” requires accurate and adequate quantity information that 

permits the buyer to make price and quantity comparisons. A declaration of quantity in 

terms of count shall be combined with appropriate declarations of the weight, measure, 

and size of the individual units unless a declaration of count is fully informative. Count 

alone does not fulfill this requirement. Further, the model law states, “No person shall 

represent the quantity in any manner calculated or tending to mislead or in any way 

deceive another person.” If count alone does not provide “accurate quantity 

information," consumers are certainly being mislead or deceived and cannot possibly 

make price and quantity comparisons. 

In addition to requirements in the model law, the packaging and labeling regulation 

affirms that, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom 

in terms that express a declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such declaration 

of quantity may be expressed in its traditional terms, provided such traditional declaration 

gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity. Count 

alone does not fulfill this requirement. Any net content statement that does not permit 

price and quantity comparisons is forbidden. 

In conclusion, the ability of a consumer to make price and quantity decisions without 

being mislead is basic. If count alone does not meet the requirements, a declaration in 

terms of count shall be combined with appropriate declarations of liquid measure.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 23, 2020

Order 

Clerk

September 23, 2020

160242(60)

KEITH BRONNER,

Plaintiff,

and

ANGELS WITH WINGS TRANSPORT, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff,

SC: 160242

v COA: 340930

Wayne CC: 15-013452-NF

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff- Appellant,

and

GFL ENVIRONMENTAL USA, INC., f/k/a

RIZZO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, 

Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a late 

supplemental reply is GRANTED. The supplemental reply submitted on September 21, 

2020, is accepted as timely filed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA JULIUS COLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00327-D-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2021 Decided: January 11, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Julius Cole, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6713 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/11/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Julius Cole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 

132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Cole’s motion. See United States v. Jackson, 952 F.3d 

492, 497, 502 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6713 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/11/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.19






29 of 68 
















30 of 68 
















31 of 68 
















32 of 68 















33 of 68 














34 of 68 














35 of 68 














36 of 68 














37 of 68 














38 of 68 














39 of 68 










40 of 68 














41 of 68 














42 of 68 










43 of 68 











44 of 68 














45 of 68 










46 of 68
Schedule of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.24 
  
  
  
 Schedule of Director Compensation 
  
 Directors who are not employees of the Company are paid an annual retainer of $30,000 for serving on the board of directors and an annual retainer for serving on each committee of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000 for the
Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, respectively. The chairperson of each committee receives an additional annual fee of $5,000. In addition, each non-employee director is automatically granted
an option to purchase 6,000 shares of Company common stock immediately after his or her election at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders pursuant to the terms of the Company’s 2001 Outside Directors’ Stock Option Plan, at an exercise price
equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive separate remuneration in connection with their service on the board or board committees. 
  
 Under the Outside Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (the
“Deferred Compensation Plan”), each non-employee director may elect to defer all or a specified portion of his annual retainer for future payment on a date specified by the participant or upon termination of the participant’s service
as a director. The amount deferred is used to purchase shares of Company common stock on the open market, which shares are then placed in a rabbi trust. Distributions from the Deferred Compensation Plan are made in Class A Common Stock.