alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 26, 2012

s0919 

# Order

September 26, 2012

144095

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144095

COA: 304315

Sanilac CC: 03

- 005624

- FH

WILLIAM SCOTT SCHERRET

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4 , 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS






    To the Shareholders of
       ALLTEL Corporation:


    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
    of our report incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into the
    Company's previously filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 2-99523,
    33-35343, 33-48476, 33-54175, 33-56291 and 33-65199.



                                               /s/ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



    Little Rock, Arkansas,
    February 11, 1998.


                                       31
EX-10.2







Exhibit 10.2



Summary of Compensation for Directors




Summary of Compensation for Non-Management Directors



On November 17, 2005, the Board of Directors of the Company approved an increase in director fees,
committee member fees and chairperson fees paid to non-management directors of the Company
beginning with the next board meeting following November 18, 2005. Director fees, committee fees
and chairperson fees are only paid to non-management directors as summarized below:



Each non-management director will receive a director fee of $10,000 per Board meeting attended in
person or by tele-conference, paid quarterly and not to exceed $40,000 per year.



Each non-management director who serves on a committee of the Board of Directors will receive an
annual fee of $5,000 per committee, paid quarterly.



Each non-management director who serves as the chairperson of a committee of the Board of Directors
will receive an annual fee of $2,500 per committee, paid quarterly.



Summary of Compensation for Management Directors



Our three management directors are Mr. Donald R. Horton, Mr. Donald J. Tomnitz and Mr. Bill W.
Wheat. These three management directors do not receive any director fees for serving as directors
of the Company. The compensation for the 2006 fiscal year for Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz, as
executive officers of the Company, is set forth on Exhibit 10.1 attached to this Form 8-K and
incorporated by reference herein. The compensation for the 2006 fiscal year for Mr. Wheat, as an
executive officer and the chief financial officer of the Company, comprises of a salary of $200,000
and a discretionary bonus to be determined. Mr. Wheat also has the opportunity to participate in
the Company’s other long-term benefit programs such as the SERP 2 plan and the Company’s 401(k)
program. The SERP 2 plan is a promise by the Company to pay retirement benefits to the participant.
If Mr. Wheat is employed by the Company on the last day of the current fiscal year (for example
September 30, 2006), then the Company will establish a liability to him equal to 10% of his annual
base salary as of the first day of the current fiscal year (for example October 1, 2005). This
liability will accrue earnings in future years at a rate established by the administrative
committee, which governs the SERP 2 plan.
National Cybersecurity Workforce 

Framework Development Process

Data 

Gathering

Expert 

Review 

and 

Analysis

Public 

Comment 

Period

Obtain DoD, IC, 

OPM and other 

existing 

competencies and 

job analysis work 

products (2007-

2011)

Develop draft 

competencybased Framework 

(2011)

Conduct verification 

with experts (April 

2012 – August 

2012)

Finalize and publish 

version 1.0 of the 

National 

Cybersecurity 

Workforce 

Framework (April 

2013)

Convene experts to 

refine draft 

Framework (2011)

Integrate expert 

feedback into a 

revised Framework 

(2011)

Finalizing 

the 

Framework 

Release (through 

NICE) the draft 

Framework for 

public comment 

(September 2011)

Compile and 

analyze input on 

draft Framework 

(January 2012 –

March 2012)
EXHIBIT 23



                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
Miami, Florida

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (File No.  333-37574,  333-37576  and  333-37582) of our
report dated August 23, 2002,  except for Note 5(b) which is as of September 23,
2002  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc.
appearing  in the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2002.

                                                        BDO Seidman, LLP

Miami, Florida
September 30, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
POSITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  187,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,707
<INVENTORY>                                     67,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               466,022
<PP&E>                                       2,668,294
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,243,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,058,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          610,040
<BONDS>                                        550,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     566,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,058,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,258,785
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,090,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,809
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                121,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,486
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,842
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 230A15

Filed 18 December 2015

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY

v.

PEACOCK FARM, INC., RODOLPHE T. LYNCH, and WILLARD A. RHODES

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 772 S.E.2d 495 (2015), dismissing an 

interlocutory appeal from an order entered on 5 June 2012, as certified under Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(b) by an order entered on 16 April 2014, both by Judge Anderson 

D. Cromer in Superior Court, Moore County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 17 

November 2015.

Howard, Stallings, From, Hutson, Atkins, Angell & Davis, P.A., by John N. 

Hutson, Jr. and Matthew M. Lawless, for plaintiff-appellee. 

Van Camp, Meacham & Newman, PLLC, by William M. Van O’Linda, Jr., for 

defendant-appellant Rodolphe T. Lynch.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, the decision of the Court of 

Appeals is affirmed. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further remand 

to the trial court so that additional proceedings may be held not inconsistent with the 

opinion.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
```

EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     William H. Joyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco Holdings
LLC ("Nalco") and Bradley J. Bell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with the filing of Nalco's 10-K financial
report (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, covering the
calendar quarter ending December 31, 2004, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S.
C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as
follows:

     a.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     b.   The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nalco.

                                            /s/ William H. Joyce
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            William H. Joyce
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            Date:  March 24, 2005

                                            /s/ Bradley J. Bell
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Bradley J. Bell
                                            Executive Vice President and Chief
                                            Financial Officer
                                            Date:  March 24, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to Nalco Holdings LLC and will be retained by Nalco Holdings LLC and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors
Spatial Technology Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated January 23, 1998 incorporated herein
by reference.



                                                  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Denver, Colorado
June 3, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



                                   FORM 8-K/A



                CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



        DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): April 14, 1998



                           VOICE CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



   DELAWARE                        0-10385                        75-1707970
  (State of                    (Commission File                (IRS employment
incorporation)                     Number)                   identification no.)



                                14140 MIDWAY ROAD
                                    SUITE 100
                               DALLAS, TEXAS 75244
                    (Address of principal executive offices)



REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE    972-726-1200


                                                               Page 1 of 2 pages
                                                         Exhibit index on page 2


<PAGE>   2
ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

(a)  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BUSINESS ACQUIRED

     Audited financial statements of PureSpeech for the year ended December 31,
     1996 and 1997.

(b)  PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION

(c)  EXHIBITS.

23.1 CONSENT OF PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP



<PAGE>   3
         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                       VOICE CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.



Date: August 31, 1998                  By:  /s/ Kim S. Terry
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Kim S. Terry,
                                            Vice President





<PAGE>   4
                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT
NUMBER         DESCRIPTION
------         -----------
<S>            <C>                     
 23.1          CONSENT OF PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Piccadilly Cafeterias,
Inc.'s Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-17737 and Form S-8 No. 33-27793)
and in Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.'s Registration Statement and related
Prospectuses (Form S-3 No. 33-17131) of our report dated June 20, 1997 with
respect to the financial statements of Morrison Fresh Cooking, Inc. included in
this Form 8-K/A of Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.



Ernst & Young, LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
                                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP
                                                          ----------------------
                                                              Ernst & Young, LLP

August 7, 1998
Dismissed; Opinion Filed July 11, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01369-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.K.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-12692

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Appellant has not filed his brief despite being cautioned that failure to file the brief by June 

21, 2019 would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

181369F.P05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.K.M., A 

CHILD

No. 05-18-01369-CV 

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-12692.

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness, Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, 

III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 11th day of July, 2019.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 376 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4646 

[Report No. 108–626] 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the holding of Federal 

district court in Plattsburgh, New York, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2004 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 21, 2004 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the 

holding of Federal district court in Plattsburgh, New 

York, 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, 
2 

•HR 4646 RH 

1 SECTION 1. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE NORTHERN 

2 DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

3 Section 112(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘and Watertown’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘Watertown, and Plattsburgh’’. 

6 SECTION 1. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE NORTHERN 

7 DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

8 Section 112(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

9 amended by inserting ‘‘Plattsburgh,’’ after ‘‘Malone,’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to amend title 

28, United States Code, to provide for an additional 

place of holding court in the Northern District of New 

York.’’. 

Union Calendar No. 376 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4646 

[Report No. 108–626] 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide 

Plattsburgh, New York, and for other purposes. for the holding of Federal district court in 

JULY 21, 2004 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee 

dered to be printed of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and or-
Compensation information for named executive officers



 Exhibit 10.37 
  
 COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  
 The table below provides information regarding the 2005 cash bonus, December 2, 2005 stock option grant, 2006 annual base salary and
2006 target cash bonus of each named executive officer of Kosan Biosciences Incorporated listed below. 
  

												
	 Executive Officer

	  	2005 Cash Bonus

	  	 Stock Option
Grant*
 (# shares)

	  	2006 Annual
Base Salary

	  	2006 Target
Cash Bonus**

	 
	 Daniel V. Santi, M.D., Ph.D., 
 Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	105,000	  	78,750	  	$	445,000	  	45	%
					
	 Robert Johnson Jr., M.D., Ph.D., 
 Executive Vice President, Development and Chief Medical Officer
	  	$	75,000	  	52,500	  	$	365,000	  	30	%
					
	 Susan M. Kanaya, 
 Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	57,000	  	37,500	  	$	305,000	  	30	%
					
	 Margaret A. Horn
 Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	  	 	N/A	  	150,000	  	$	300,000	  	30	%



	*	Granted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company on December 2, 2005, with an exercise price per share equal to the closing price as reported on
the Nasdaq National Market on December 1, 2005. 


	**	Percentage of each named executive officer’s 2006 annual base salary.
#### Jas. A. Rouse *v.*James Cate.

Appeal — Record of Mandate.

It is the imperative duty of the trial court to enter'of record a mandate of the Court of Appeals.

*531APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1874.

*Ray & Walker, for, appellant.*

*Sweeney & Stuart, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

From the transcript of the proceedings now before us, it appears that an uncertified copy of the opinion and mandate of this court was filed, but it does not appear that the mandate was entered on the record, or that there was a motion to again place the case on the docket, and enter the mandate. But after the opinion and mandate were filed, and before a judgment had been rendered by the court below in conformity to the mandate of this court, appellee was- permitted to file an amended answer, in which he alleges that on his own petition in the district court of the United States, he had been adjudged a bankrupt, and by said judgment had been discharged from all his then existing debts, the debt to appellant being inr cluded; that he was notified of said proceedings in bankruptcy, and appeared and contested the right of appellee to his discharge. The discharge was not filed; but the court below dismissed the petition with costs incurred since the filing of the amended answer, and the plaintiff below has appealed.

It has been repeatedly held that it is imperative on the court below to enter the mandate of this court. It has no option to obey or disobey it. This court itself has no power to revoke it after the expiration of the term at which it was pronounced. It must be carried into effect by the inferior court according to its true intent and meaning. McLean v. Nixon, 18 B. Mon. 768, and authorities cited. The judgment, when rendered by the inferior court in pursuance to the mandate of this court, stands in that court as all other final judgments over which the court has no control after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, unless to vacate or modify it in the manner prescribed by law. Ib. The court below should have rendered judgment in conformity to the mandate of this court, and as to matters of discharge subsequently occurring, left the parties to such remedies as the law afforded.

Wherefore the judgrpent is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to render judgment as herein indicated and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
### NUMBER 13

- 1 5

- 00 164

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

CITY OF BAY CITY , Appellant,

v.

SHIRLEY KNAPP, ET AL

. , Appellee s

.

On appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This appeal was abated by this Court on May 12, 2015

, to allow the parties to

finalize a settlement agreement

. This cause is now before the Court on a joint motion to

dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED

. The parties have reached an agreement with regard to the disposition of the

matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to the agreement, t he parties request this Court2

to set aside the trial court ’ s interlocutory or der denying City of Bay City’s p lea to the

j urisdiction without regard to the merits, and remand this case to the trial court for rendition

of a judgment in accordance with the pa rties ’ agreement

. 1

The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court ’ s opinion that the motion

should be granted. The joint motion to set aside and remand is GRANTED.

Accordingly, we set aside the trial court ’ s judgment without regard to the mer its, and

REMAND this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the

parties ’ agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(2)(B).

Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 29th day of October , 20 1 5

.

1 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) permits the appellate court to dispose of an appeal in accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). This joint motion requests dismi ssal of the appeal and remand for entry of further orders by the trial court in accordance with the settlement. While this Court may dismiss an appeal pursuant to an agreement by the parties, we are not permitted to dismiss and remand for further proceedi ngs. See id

., 43.2; In re Ortega , 225 S.W.3d 610, 610 n.1 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2006, no pet.). Accordingly , we interpret the joint motion as requesting that we set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and that we remand to the trial court for further proceedings.