alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION 05-00139-CG 

KIMBERLY ANN KNIGHT )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the joint motion to continue trial. (Doc. 20). Defendant sets

forth that she has been referred to the Pretrial Diversion Program but must first meet certain

requirements before acceptance and that she needs additional time to do so. Defendant also sets forth

that the Government concurs in the motion to continue. Defendant filed a written waiver of speedy trial

rights contemporaneously with the motion to continue. (Doc. 19). 

Under these circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in the joint motion, the court finds that

the ends of justice served by continuing this action outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). Therefore, for purposes of the Speedy Trial

Act, any delay resulting from this continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is GRANTED and this action is continued to the

September 2005 criminal term. The pretrial conference is cancelled at this time. The parties are

ORDERED to immediately notify the court upon defendant’s acceptance into the Program. In the

event that she is not accepted, the pretrial conference shall be rescheduled. 

DONE this the 9

th day of June, 2005. 

s / Kristi D. Lee 

KRISTI D. LEE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cr-00139-CG-B Document 23 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 1
NVL-03.31.2015-10K-EX10.49 RetentionLetter Mayr



July 1, 2014
Erwin Mayr


EXHIBIT 10.49
Dear Erwin,


Your contributions to Novelis are very important. In recognition of this, the Company has put in place an enhancement to the existing LTI program. This “Bridge” plan was developed to supplement the LTIP while the new Novelis portion of the Plan matures. This program will provide you with a cash incentive in addition to your other compensation such as your base salary, annual bonus opportunity and long-term incentive opportunity.


The Bridge plan is in place for FY2015 and will be reviewed annually. 


You will receive three payments in the total amount of    $100,000


  First Payment in December 2014    $50,000
  Second Payment in December 2015    $25,000
  Third Payment in December 2016    $25,000


Because this opportunity is designed to enhance our LTIP as a retention incentive, in the event that you voluntarily terminate your employment prior to December 31, 2016, or are terminated for cause, you will be required to repay any payments made under the Bridge plan in the previous 12 months, less applicable taxes, and any you will not be entitled to any other payments thereafter. If you are terminated involuntarily without cause, any unpaid cash installments will be immediately cancelled but you will not be required to repay any cash payments you have received.


Your acceptance of any payments under this award shall constitute your acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth above.


I am very pleased that we are able to offer you this opportunity and I look forward to you continuing to be a key member of the team as we focus on building an even more successful Novelis.


Sincerely, 




Phil Martens
President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

A reconciliation of basic to diluted earnings per share for the six months ended
September 30, 1998 and 1997, is as follows:



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     1998                                     1997
                                 ----------------------------------        --------------------------------
                                     BASIC               DILUTED               BASIC              DILUTED
                                 ------------         ------------         ------------     ---------------

<S>                              <C>                  <C>                  <C>              <C>             
Net earnings (loss)              $ (2,363,498)        $ (2,363,498)        $ (1,112,225)    $    (1,112,225)
                                 ============         ============         ============     =============== 

Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding
      during the period             4,000,210            4,000,210            4,000,210           4,000,210
      the period

Net effect of dilutive stock options
      based on the treasury stock
      method at market prices               -                    -                    -                   -
                                 ------------         ------------         ------------     --------------- 

Shares used for computation         4,000,210            4,000,210            4,000,210           4,000,210
                                 ============         ============         ============     =============== 

Net earnings (loss) per share         $ (0.59)             $ (0.59)           $ (0.28)            $ (0.28)
                                 ============         ============         ============     =============== 
</TABLE>

As the Company incurred a net loss for the six months ended September 30, 1998
and 1997, there were no adjustments for potentially dilutive securities as the
adjustments would have been antidilutive.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CaliforniaCoastal Communities, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in their respectivecapacity as an officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of their respective knowledge, that:

 

·                  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

·                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2009  |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |
| /s/ Raymond J.  Pacini     |   |
| Raymond J.  Pacini         |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer   |   |
|                       |   |
| /s/ Sandra G.  Sciutto     |   |
| Sandra G.  Sciutto         |   |
| Senior Vice  President and |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer   |   |

 

----
1Because the plaintiff’s successful bid is less than the amount of its claim, it is not required to

transfer any funds to the Marshal as a condition of confirmation. (Doc. 17, ¶ 7).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BUSINESS LOAN CENTER, L.L.C., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0790-WS-B

 )

F/V LUCKY JOHN, in rem, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion to confirm sale of the F/V LUCKY

JOHN (“the Vessel”), to convey title to the Vessel, and to release the Vessel. (Doc. 20). The file

reflects the following: that notice of the sale was properly given pursuant to Court order; that the sale

took place as ordered on the front steps of the United States Courthouse in Mobile, Alabama at noon

on May 25, 2005; that the plaintiff’s bid of $63,000.00 was the highest and best bid received; that the

plaintiff has performed the terms of the purchase;1 and that no written objection to the sale or the sale

price has been filed.

Accordingly, pursuant to Supplemental Rule E and Local Admiralty Rule 9, the motion to

confirm sale, convey title and release the Vessel is granted. The sale of the Vessel to the plaintiff is

confirmed. The Marshal is directed to execute and deliver to the plaintiff, or to any person or entity

designated by the plaintiff in writing, a Marshal’s bill of sale conveying title to the Vessel, her engines,

machines, fittings, tackle and all other appurtenances thereto belonging, free and clear of any and all

liens and encumbrances, along with all other appropriate documentation to effect a proper legal

conveyance of the Vessel. The Vessel is hereby released from seizure and court-directed

custodianship by Gazzier Shipyard, Inc. to the plaintiff or to any person or entity designated by the

plaintiff. 

Case 1:04-cv-00790-WS-B Document 21 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

 

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00790-WS-B Document 21 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32(b)

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Jordan
Industries, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), hereby certifies
that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended
June 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
ss.78m(a)) and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.

Date: December 14, 2005

/s/   Norman R. Bates
---------------------------------------
Norman R. Bates
Chief Financial Officer, Vice President
and Assistant Secretary
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-29-2008

PMC Film Canada Inc v. Shintech Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-5011

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"PMC Film Canada Inc v. Shintech Inc" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1314.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1314
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 20, 2008

 

No. 06-5011 

PMC Film Canada, Inc.,

 

Appellant

vs.

Shintech, Inc.

 (District of New Jersey - Trenton Civil No. 04-cv-05150)

PRESENT: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and ROTH, Circuit Judges 

1. Motion by Appellee Shintech, Inc. for Clarification or, Alternatively, Correction

 of Opinion and Judgment.

 2. Response by Appellant to Motion for Clarification or, Alternatively, Correction

 of Opinion and Judgment.

3. Reply by Appellee Shintech, Inc. in Support of Motion for Clarification or, 

 Alternatively, Correction of Opinion and Judgment.

 /s/ LaToya Corprew 

Opinion/Judgment entered 02/20/08. LaToya Corprew 

 Case Manager 267-299-4915

 O R D E R 

The foregoing motion is GRANTED, and the Opinion and Judgment are corrected as follows: 

The last full paragraph of the Opinion, which reads:

“We will vacate the November 30, 2006 order of the District Court and

remand this matter to the District Court with instructions to enter

judgment in favor of PMC.”

is deleted and replaced with: 
“We will vacate the November 30, 2006 order of the District Court and

remand this matter to the District Court for further proceedings

consistent with this Court’s Opinion.” 

The first sentence of the last full paragraph of the Judgment, which reads:

“ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the order of the District Court be

and hereby is vacated and the matter is remanded to the District Court

with instructions to enter judgment in favor of PMC.”

is deleted and replaced with:

“ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the order of the District Court be

and hereby is vacated and the matter is remanded to the District Court

for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s Opinion.” 

By the Court,

/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry 

Circuit Judge

Dated: April 29, 2008

lwc/cc: Jeffrey G. DiAmico, Esq.

Francis J. Sullivan, Esq.

Christopher M. DiMuro, Esq.

T. Michael Wall, Esq.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         199,451
<SECURITIES>                                12,314,373
<RECEIVABLES>                                  342,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,985
<PP&E>                                       4,176,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                 891,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,169,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          450,161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,719,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,169,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               811,213
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  317,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                493,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                   493,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            493,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   493,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
Unaudited.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 212,000
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           13,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (13,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       387,000
<PP&E>                                              11,220,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,082,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       7,673,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  265,000
<BONDS>                                              7,946,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         7,673,000
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       470,000
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          335,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     177,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (42,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             4.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0



</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4744 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Tan RDT-RW Liquid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Diresul Tan RDT-RW 

Liquid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIRESUL TAN RDT4 RW LIQUID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.35.05 Diresul Tan RDT-RW Liquid (leuco sulfur dye) (CAS 

No. 1326–49–4) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.19.50 ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 4744 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JAMES LEWIS BROWN, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1757

December 13, 2023 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Susan St. John, Judge.

James Lewis Brown, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SLEET, C.J., SMITH and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES,INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone   972.219.3311 Fax

 

May 12, 2008

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

I, David N. Clark,President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 which thiscertification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/* David N. Clark                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| David N. Clark                         |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| May 12, 2008                      |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         731,529
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  907,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,663,676
<PP&E>                                       4,212,628
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,070,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,885,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,410,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       237,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,985,636
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,885,124
<SALES>                                      1,542,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,542,844
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  771,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               494,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                159,272
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,070,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,229,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,229,272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02 
        

</TABLE>
Filed 7/12/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 126

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Mark Christian Palmer, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20120077 & 20120078

Appeal from the District Court of McHenry County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable John C. McClintock, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Marie A. Roller, State’s Attorney, 407 S. Main Street, Room 307, Towner, ND 58788, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Russell J. Myhre, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, ND 58072, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Palmer

Nos. 20120077 & 20120078

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Mark Christian Palmer appealed from a district court order denying his motion to dismiss a probation revocation petition and revoking his probation.  On appeal, Palmer argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion and revoking his probation because he was still incarcerated when the petition for revocation was filed and therefore his probation had not yet commenced.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).  See State v. Bender, 1998 ND 72, ¶ 15, 576 N.W.2d 210 (holding N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) allows revocation at any time prior to the expiration of probation and does not prohibit revocation if the defendant violates a condition of probation while still incarcerated).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom