alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Keith Russell JUDD, Petitioner.

No. 771.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2004.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Keith Russell Judd (1) moves for three-judge review of a one-judge order pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 27(1), (2) moves for reconsideration of the court’s September 21, 2004 order denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and (3) submits documents requesting other various relief.

The court’s September 21, 2004 order stated that Judd’s mandamus petition would be dismissed if he did not pay the filing fee. Judd has failed to pay the $250 filing fee as required by the court’s previous order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Judd’s motion for three-judge review of the court’s September 21, 2004 order is granted.

(2) Judd’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

(3) Judd’s petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.

(4) Unless Judd pays the $250 filing fee, all further submissions from Judd will be placed in the file without response.

(5) All pending motions are moot.
#### WOOTEN *v.*SMITH.

No. 6420.

November 14, 1928.

*260
      *L. G. Harrell*and *W. A. Woolen,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. S. Mann,*contra.

Russell, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) We are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in enjoining the defendant from operating the filling-station in question. There is no reference in the brief of the counsel for plaintiff in. error to that portion of the order which enjoins the defendant from obstructing the private way over the lot in question; and therefore this part of the order need not be further considered. In *Standard Oil Co.*v. *Kahn,*165*Ga. 575*(141 S. E. 643), this court held, first, that a filling-station is not a nuisance per se; secondly, that the allegations of the petition in that case, construed as against demurrer, did not show that the filling-station which the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from erecting would be so erected or operated as to make the same a nuisance; and, thirdly, that the trial court erred in not sustaining a general demurrer to the petition. The case there made by the plaintiff is similar to that alleged by the petitioner in the present case, but the petition in that case alleged more acts which were relied upon to substantiate the contention that the operation of the filling-station would constitute a nuisance than are presented by the evidence in the present case. We there held, that, even conceding the truth of the allegations in the petition (and if they were proved as alleged), the plaintiff would still not be entitled to an injunction restraining the operation of the filling-station. That ruling settles the law of this case. In the present case evidence was introduced which could have been believed by the trial judge; and yet, under the rulings above cited, it was not sufficient to prove that the operation of the filling-station would cause a nuisance and to authorize the grant of an injunc*261tion. Therefore the trial judge did not legally exercise his discretion in passing upon the value of the evidence in the case under the law by which it must have been measured; and his judgment granting an injunction must be

*Reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
NIGHTINGALE,  INC.'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     1,310

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,310
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,120
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          368,660
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (163,140)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,120
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,488
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (3,647)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)



</TABLE>
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.

November 27, 2019

p1120 

# Order

Clerk November 27, 2019

159512

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159512

COA: 343806

Eaton CC: 2016

- 020238

- FH

MICHAEL CLIFFORD BYERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44665

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

KALLEN J. HAZEL

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 527

Filed: July 27, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of one year, for felony escape, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for a ppellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Kallen J. Hazel pled guilty to felony escape . Idaho Code § 18

- 2505 . The district court

sentenced Hazel to a unified term of five years with one year determinate

. Hazel appeals

asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. H ernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length of a s entence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hazel ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
[Cite as Claren v. Mansfield Corr. Inst. , 2011-Ohio-5962.]



# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

PAUL CLAREN, Case No. 2008-08744

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Judge Joseph T. Clark Magistrate Anderson M. Renick

v.

MANSFIELD CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, JUDGMENT ENTRY

Defendant.

{¶1} On August 19, 2011, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for defendant. {¶2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) states, in part: “A party may file written objections to a magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of t he filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i).” Plaintiff timely filed his objections. {¶3} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b) further provides, in part: {¶4} “(ii) Specificity of objection. An objection to a magistrate’s decision shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection. {¶5} “(iii) Objection to magistrate’s factual finding; transcript or affidavit. An objection to a factual finding * * * shall be supported by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if a transcript is not available.” {¶6} Plaintiff’s objections are not specific and, to the extent that he objects to the magistrate’s factual findings, he did not file a transcript of the evidence relevant to his objections. {¶7} Furthermore, upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision and the objections, the court finds that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issuesCase No. 2008-08744 - 2 - JUDGMENT ENTRY

and appropriately applied the law. Therefor e, the objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

_____________________________________ JOSEPH T. CLARK Judge

cc:

Christopher P. Conomy A ssistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Paul Claren 930 North Ella Street, Apt. 15 Orrville, Ohio 44667-1145

Filed September 30, 2011 To S.C. reporter November 18, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT SET FORTH IN THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED 5-2-98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                       1,487,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,309,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,541,922
<PP&E>                                       4,577,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,119,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,876,597
<BONDS>                                      9,670,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,889
<COMMON>                                        28,562
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,579,206)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,119,612
<SALES>                                     16,509,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,509,908
<CGS>                                       10,992,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,992,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,402,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             428,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (313,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (313,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (313,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
Article Ref: J036

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 4 October 2021 Page 1

Celebrate National Metric Week 

Byline: Elizabeth Benham 

Do you know a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) educator looking for ideas to help 

celebrate National Metric Week, October 10 to 16, 2021? We’re here to help!

Metric Week is a fun way for educators to focus on measurement skill development during the first weeks 

of school. National Metric Week is currently celebrated during the week that includes the tenth day of the

tenth month, a play on the “powers of ten.” The holiday was established by the National Council of 

Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and initially celebrated during the month of May. However, in 1984

Metric Week was moved to October to better compliment the K-12 academic calendar.

NIST Outreach Publications

NIST Public Affairs Office (PAO) has recently issued an updated SI Measurement Poster featuring the 

Guardians of the SI Superheroes (Figure 1). The simplified SI base unit definitions correspond to each 

Superhero and are aimed at an upper elementary school audience. Companion outreach materials are 

available on the NIST Education website.

The SI Relationships Poster (SP 1247) illustrates the relationships of the SI derived units with special 

names and symbols and the seven base units (Figure 2). High school, higher education, and measurement 

scientists often post this handy guide in classrooms, offices, and laboratories. Hardcopies of both colorful 

posters can be requested by contacting TheSI@nist.gov. 

The NIST Metric Program website has curated additional educational materials that can be downloaded 

and freely reproduced. The free NIST SI Teacher Kit is also available to U.S. teachers, parents,

enrichment programs, and outreach ambassadors.

USMA Resources

The USMA website provides a wealth of information to help promote metric measurements during the 

holiday, including general principles for teaching the metric system. USMA is celebrating STEM 

educators with a Metric Week give-away. The grand prize includes an annual USMA membership, 100 

metric rulers, and liter cube demonstration model. Learn how U.S. teachers can enter the promotion on 

Instagram (@USMA_Metric). 

This year, USMA’s Governor’s Proclamation Project is focused on recognizing Metric Week in every 

state and territory. Governor proclamations are used by local school districts and others to increase public 

awareness during Metric Week outreach activities. Is your state represented in this year’s campaign? 

Access proclamation pdfs on 10 October from the project webpage.

Whether you’re hosting a hands-on activity or daily outreach events this year, let us share in your success! 

When promoting your event or posting photos afterwards, tag us (@nist) on social media with the hashtag 

#MetricWeek.
Article Ref: J036

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 4 October 2021 Page 2

Figure 1. The SI Measurement System poster. Credit NIST/Hanacek.

Figure 2. NIST SP 1247, SI Relationship Poster. Credit: NIST.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Change of Control Bonus Plan for Five Senior
Executives


 


At the Company’s November 8, 2005 board meeting, the Board of
Directors voted to adopt a verbal plan approved by the Company’s Compensation
Committee to award five key executives: Gary De Mello – Chief Operating
Officer; Jon Denis – Executive Vice President, Sales; Dennis Jolicoeur – Chief
Financial Officer; Steven Spitz – Vice President, General Counsel; Michael
Surmeian, Vice President, Sales a one year salary bonus upon a change  in control of the Company.  Such a bonus, which would be equivalent to
the base pay of each individual at the time of the change of control event,
would be triggered by any of the five (5) listed events under section 3(c
) MERGERS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS as enumerated in Natrol Inc.’s Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Option and Grant Plan filed with the SEC in May 2000
as part of the Company’s Proxy Statement. The five events are as follows:


 


•                  The dissolution or liquidation of the Company.
 
•                  The sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company on a consolidated basis to an unrelated person or entity.
 
•                  A merger, reorganization or consolidation in which the holders of the Company’s outstanding voting power immediately prior to such transaction do not own a majority of the outstanding voting power of the surviving or resulting entity immediately upon completion of such transaction.
 
•                  The sale of all of the Stock of the Company to an unrelated person or entity. 
 
•                  Any other transaction in which the owners of the Company’s outstanding voting power prior to such transaction do not own at least a majority of the outstanding voting power of the relevant entity after the transaction (in each case, a “Transaction”).
 


The change of control bonuses are associated with the specific
individuals listed and not with the positions listed.  The current base salaries of these
individuals are: Gary De Mello, $275,000; Jon Denis, $325,000, Dennis Jolicoeur
$250,000, Steven Spitz $226,767; and, Michael Surmeian $187,000.
<PAGE>   1








                                Exhibit No. 11.1
                                ----------------


                         Statement of Computation of Net
                          Investment Income Per Limited
                                Partnership Unit









<PAGE>   2


                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.

                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 For the Three Months             For the Six Months
                                                    Ended June 30,                  Ended June 30,
                                             --------------------------      --------------------------
                                                1998            1997            1998            1997
                                             ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
<S>                                          <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>       
Net Investment Income                        $   43,463      $  160,119      $   57,928      $  309,657

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners             99%             99%             99%             99%
                                             ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

Net Investment Income Allocable
   to Limited Partners                       $   43,029      $  158,518      $   57,349      $  306,560
                                             ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding              1,020,142       1,104,881       1,020,142       1,104,881
                                             ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Net Investment Income Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                          $      .04      $      .14      $      .06      $      .28
                                             ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
EX-10.3






Nevada Security Bank

Employment Agreement Addendum Number One

For

Jack Buchold




An employment agreement dated September 15, 2005 by and between Jack Buchold and Nevada
Security Bank is hereby amended as follows:




4. EXECUTIVE BENEFITS: 




4.7 Long-Term Care Insurance: The Bank shall purchase, for Executive or
Executive’s spouse, qualified long-term care insurance (as defined in Internal Revenue Code
(Code) section 7702B(b)), from an insurance company selected by the Bank, with an annual
premium of up to four thousand dollars ($4,000). Pursuant to Code section 106, the cost of
such coverage shall be excluded from Executive’s gross income. Executive may purchase, at
his own expense, long-term care insurance for his spouse or additional coverage for
himself. In the event that the insurance company determines that the Executive or
Executive’s spouse does not qualify for long-term care insurance, in lieu of such coverage,
the Bank shall pay the Executive additional cash wages in the amount of $4,000 per year,
payable in equal monthly installments. The Executive shall not have the opportunity to
elect to receive cash in lieu of the long-term care insurance. The Bank reserves the right
to terminate the qualified long-term care insurance, at any time, upon 30 days prior
written notice to Executive. In the event that the Bank terminates such insurance, the
Executive shall not be entitled to receive the cash value of any unpaid premium(s).”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Addendum to the Employment Agreement effective
November 14, 2005.



Nevada Security Bank


By:



	 	 	 
	     /s/Hal Giomi     

	 	     /s/ Jack Buchold     
	 

	 	 
	Hal Giomi

	 	Jack Buchold






Chief Executive Officer
9634.

#### Washington Exchange Bank *v.*Smith.

Decided January 29, 1920.

Complaint ;from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. November 20, 1917.

*Colley & Colley, Little, Powell, Smith &*Goldstein, for plaintiff.

*I. T. Irvin Jr., Samuel H. Sibley,*for defendant.

Broyles, C. J.

The Supreme Court on January 13, 1920 (149 *Ga.*650, 101 S. E. 769), having reversed the judgment of this court rendered in this case on February 1, 1919 (23 *Ga. App.*356, 98 S. E. 418), that judgment is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is

*Reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.*