alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0724

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MADISON WILLIAM MINER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2024

04/29/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0724
11642.

#### Ward *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Conviction of shooting at another; from Walton superior court— Judge Cobb. May 12, 1920.

*Orrin Roberts,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. O. Dean, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

Tlie sole error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which contained) only the usual general grounds. The evidence amply authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
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.

 

December 4, 2020

Order 

Clerk

December 4, 2020

162153(51)(52)

DENITA RENEE PRICE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 162153 

v COA: 349162

Oakland CC: 2018-166104-NH 

DR. ANGELA UNITIS MARRAS, M.D., 

and PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL, 

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing her reply and for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The reply will be 

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before December 21, 2020.
11261.

#### Glover-White Mercantile Co. *v.*Ausburn.

Decided November 10, 1920.

Action for damages; from Floyd superior court-—-Judge Wright. January 12, 1920.

The plaintiff offered to buy from the defendant certain cottonseed, stating that he wanted a variety known as Cooke’s seed, and no other, and was willing to pay a higher price if he could get that variety of seed. The defendant offered to sell to him Cooke’s cottonseed, and did sell to him certain seed which the defendant represented to be Cooke’s seed. He planted it, and when the crop matured he found that it was not Cooke’s, but another variety of seed. He sued for breach of contract, and by demurrer the defendant contended that no cause of action was set forth in the petition, and that the damages asked were too remote and speculative. The plaintiff then amended the petition and alleged that the "defendant well knew at the time said seed were purchased the purpose for which they were bought, and also knew that said seed were not of the variety called for under the contract, and the defendant, wilfully and with the knowledge that said seed were not Cooke’s seed, fraudulently, for the purpose of selling them to plaintiff at the high price named, represented that seed to be Cooke’s seed.” To the petition as amended the defendant demurred generally and specially, contending that there was no cause of actign, and that the plaintiff was attempting to .set up therein a cause of action ex contractu coupled with *781a cause of action ex delicto. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted.

*780Jenkins, P. J.

One suing for breacli of the specific terms of an express contract cannot by amendment convert the suit into an action for tort, based on fraud and deceit, nor can he join such an action on contract with one based on tort. *Brooke*v. *Cole,*108 *Ga.*251, 252 (33 S. E. 849); *Wolff*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*130 *Ga.*251 (60 S. E. 569). *Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*781
      *Wright Willingham, L. H. Covington,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. B. Edwards,*contra.
<PAGE> 1

                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23



                          ACTION APPROVED BY
         EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
                            APRIL 28, 1995
               AFFECTING CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS,
                     INCLUDING ROBERT B. SHAPIRO


                      Retiree Medical Proration
                      -------------------------

/ /  The next item is a request to amend the supplemental retirement
     agreements (SERP's) for those EMC members shown in Exhibit 1
     so that the calculation for their retiree medical coverage is
     based in a like manner to their supplemental retirement
     provisions.

/ /  Over the years, Monsanto has provided executives in certain senior
     positions supplemental retirement benefits. The decision to provide
     these benefits is normally based on having to recruit a senior
     employee with experience in the middle of his or her career.

/ /  Calculation of the supplemental retirement benefit (SERP) normally
     assumes the executive will be treated as if he or she were a Monsanto
     employee with 30 years of service. From this total benefit is
     subtracted the retirement benefit which would be available from
     the executive's prior employer.

/ /  In 1992, Monsanto made changes to the retiree medical plan that
     addressed FAS 106 liability issues. Included in these changes was
     a proration of Monsanto's contribution to retiree medical coverage
     for employees with less than 25 years of service and who retire
     after the year 2000.

/ /  Therefore, under current policy, those senior executives with SERP's
     who will have less than twenty-five years service and retire after
     the year 2000, will have their contributions to retiree medical
     pro-rated to reflect actual years of service. This is inconsistent
     with our philosophy of treating those executives as 30 year
     Monsanto employees.

/ /  Therefore, we recommend the Committee approve an amendment to
     existing SERP's for those EMC members shown in Exhibit 1 that
     would provide a supplement to their Monsanto retiree medical
     benefit contribution equal to what a Monsanto eligible retiree
     with 30 years of service would receive. Of course, they would need
     to achieve eligibility for retiree medical (age 55 and 10 yrs). The
     example at the bottom of Exhibit 1 shows how our current plan would
     work and what is being proposed.

/ /  The benefits would be a taxable supplement to their SERP representing
     the difference between what the executive will pay for the retiree
     medical plan as a retiree with less than 25 years of service and
     the same executive with 25 or more years of service. These benefits
     are typically paid as a lump sum and we would pay the retiree medical
     supplement similarly.

/ /  This change would be disclosed in the 1996 proxy as part of the
     existing SERPs.
*10796.*

#### Barclay *v.*The *State.*

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. July *5,*1919.

*Frank L. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. M. Owen,*solicitor-general, contra.

Broyles, *C. J.*

*1. In the*absence of a timely and appropriate written request for more particular instructions upon the law of reasonable doubt, the charge upon that subject as given was sufficient.

2. The 1st and 2d special grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely elaboration of the general grounds. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a now trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., ooneur.*
Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


     I,  Thomas  Glover,  Chief  Executive  Officer of  Vasomedical,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  November  30,  2005  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: January 17, 2006

                                        /s/ Thomas Glover
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Thomas Glover
                                        Chief Executive Officer



     I,  Thomas W. Fry,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Vasomedical,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
          ended  November  30,  2005  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: January 17, 2006

                                        /s/ Thomas W. Fry
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Thomas W. Fry
                                        Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40478

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OZIEL LERMA-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-357-1

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oziel Lerma-Cruz

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lerma-Cruz has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40478 Document: 00513804611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-40478

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40478 Document: 00513804611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
11394.

#### Putnam *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for forgery; from Ben Hill superior court — Judge Gower. February 14, 1920.

*A. J. & J. C. McDonald,*for plaintiff in error.

J. *B. Wall, solicitor-general, Jesse Grantham,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. One is not guilty of uttering a forged paper unless lie knows that it is a forgery. *Stephens*v. *State,*56 *Ga.*605; *Raper*v. *State,*16 *Ga. App.*121 (84 S. E. 560).

2. Where one is being tried under an indictment containing two counts, in one of which ho is charged with the forgery of a certain bank check, and in the other with the offense of knowingly uttering and publishing the cheek as true, it is error to instruct the jury, in effect, that the defendant would be guilty of uttering and publishing the alleged forged check if he attempted to pass it, and *if by reasonable inquiry he could have ascertained*that the check was a forgery'.

3. It is considered unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error, most of which, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1


                   EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                   -------------------------------------------



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                  SUBSIDIARY                                       STATE OF INCORPORATION
                  ----------                                       ----------------------
<S>   <C>                                                          <C>
      Morgan's Creative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.                        Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.                                 Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.                    Pennsylvania
      Morgan's Weirton Foods, Inc.                                  West Virginia
      Morgan's Restaurants of New Jersey, Inc.                       New Jersey
      Morgan's Foods of Missouri, Inc.                                Missouri
</TABLE>
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of the Company
 Molex Incorporated
  Cardell Corporation
  Molex International, Inc.
  Molex Brazil Ltda
  Molex CV Holdings, Inc.
  MI European Holdings CV
  Molex European Holdings BV
  Molex Zetronic S.r.l. Unico Socio
  Molex Interconnect GmbH
  Molex B.V.
  Molex Deutschland GmbH
  Molex Ireland Ltd.
  Molex Slovakia a.s.
  KYBERNEX s.r.o.




---



##### 



Molex sp. z.o.o.
  Molex (India) Ltd.
  Molex India Tooling PVT Limited
  Molex Mafatlal Micron Private Limited
  Molex India Tooling PVT Limited
  Automotive Connectors India Private Ltd.
  Molex (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
  Molex Alin International, Incorporated
  Molex de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
  Molex Automotive SARL
  Moltes s.r.o.
  Molex Electronics Ltd.
  Molex Premise Networks Limited
  Molex Far East-South Management Pte. Ltd.
  MEC International Pte. Ltd.
  Molex Singapore Pte. Ltd.
  Molex Interconnect (Chengdu) Co., Ltd.
  Molex Interconnect (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.




---



##### 



Novark Technologies, Inc.
  Molex Hong Kong/China Ltd.
  Molex Taiwan Ltd.
  Land Win Electronic Corp.
  Molex Copper Flex Products Asia, Inc.
  Molex (Thailand) Ltd.
  Molex-Japan Co., Ltd.
  Molex (Dalian) Co. Ltd.
  Molex (Dalian) Logistics Co., Ltd.
  Tachibana ESCO Company, Limited
  Shanghai ESCO Electronics Co. Ltd.
  Shanghai ESCO Densou, Co., Ltd.
  Shanghai ESCO Precision Die and Mold Co., Ltd.
  Molex Korea Co., Ltd.
  Molex Conectores e Eletronicos Comercio e Servicos Ltda.
  Molex Interconnect (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
  Molex Holding GmbH




---



##### 



Molex Polska Management SP z.o.o.
  Woodhead Connectivity GmbH
  Molex Slovakia Management, s.r.o.
  Molex Elektronik GmbH
  Molex GmbH
  Dongguan Molex South-China Connector Co. Ltd.
  Dongguan Molex Interconnect Co Ltd.
  Molex Trading (Shanghai) Limited
  Molex Electronics Limited
  MI European Holdings CV
  Molex Vietnam Co., Ltd.
  Molex Connector Corporation
  Molex Copper Flex Products, Inc.
  Woodhead Industries, Inc.
  Woodhead Interconnect, Inc.




---



##### 



WH One LLC
  Deerfield Partners CV
  Woodhead International BV
  Woodhead Connectivity Limited
  Woodhead France SARL
  Woodhead Connectivity SASU
  Woodhead Software & Electronic SASU
  I.M.A. SrL
  Micromedia SA
  Euro View Services SA
  I.M.A. SrL
  WH Two LLC
  Deerfield Partners CV
  Woodhead Japan Corporation
  Aero-Motive Company
  Central Rubber Company
  Daniel Woodhead Company




---



##### 



DW Holding LLC
  Woodhead LP
  Woodhead LP
  mPm S.r.L.
  Woodhead Asia Pte Ltd
  Woodhead de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
  Woodhead Canada Limited
  mPm S.r.L.
  Deerfield Partners CV
  Molex India Tooling PVT Limited
  Automotive Connectors India Private Ltd.
  Molex Premise Networks (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
  Molex S.A. de C.V.
  MPN EE sp zo.o
  Molex Premise Networks sp zo.o
  Molex Conectores e Eletronicos Comercio e Servicos Ltda.
  Molex Trading (Shanghai) Limited
  Polymicro Technologies, LLC
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29167]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD657


Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) will 
hold a meeting of Golden Crab Advisory Panel (AP) in Dania Beach, FL. 
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: The meeting will take place January 23, 2015. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites Fort 
Lauderdale Airport & Cruise Port, 2081 Griffin Road. Dania Beach, FL 
33312; telephone: (954) 981-2700; fax: (954) 981-9125.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information 
Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place 
Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or 
toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5ceccc88bccd3c0d7d6cacbe5d6c4c3c8c68bcbc0d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43282a2e6d2a352631302c2d033022252e206d2d2637">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the Golden Crab AP will meet from 
10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on January 23, 2015. The AP members will discuss 
modifications to the Golden Crab Allowable Fishing Zones.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office 
(see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are 
subject to change.


    Dated: December 9, 2014.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29167 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Compensation Adjustments and 2006 Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 Increase in Compensation and Bonus Approval 
  
 On December 8, 2005, the compensation committee of the board of directors of the Company approved annual salary
increases for the executive officers of the Company. Bonuses for 2005 were also approved. The following table shows the 2006 compensation to be paid to the Company’s executive officers and the bonuses to be paid for 2005: 
  

							
	 	  	2006 Compensation

	  	2005 Bonus


	 J. Daniel Sizemore
	  	$	300,000	  	$	123,750
	 William E. Blackmon
	  	$	145,000	  	$	59,355
	 Robert S. McKean
	  	$	150,000	  	$	61,875
	 Joey W. Ginn
	  	$	145,000	  	$	58,500
	 Andrew Braswell2
	  	$	145,000	  	$	59,455

  
 Approval of
Incentive Plan 
  
 On December 8, 2005, the compensation
committee of the board of directors of the Company approved an incentive plan for executive officers, senior officers, officers and employees that provides that bonuses shall be paid based upon certain performance criteria. The plan provides that
officers and employees may be paid a percentage of their base salary in the form of incentive pay, to be paid quarterly, based primarily upon the level of net income achieved as a percentage of budgeted net income. 
  
 The plan also provides incentives for the Chief Executive Officer and other
executive and senior officers. These incentives will be paid annually based on the annual performance of the Company. If an officer has not been employed an entire year, a pro-rated incentive will be paid. The potential bonuses for the executive
officers could produce maximum annual payouts of 65 percent of annual base salary for the Chief Executive Officer, 50 percent of annual base salary for the other executive officers and 35 percent of base salary for senior officers. The actual amount
of the payouts will be based upon achievement by the Company of a percentage of budgeted net income with the amount to be paid equal to zero percent, 50 percent, 75 percent or 100 percent of the potential payout depending upon how the Company
performs against budget. 
  


	2	Mr. Braswell is a senior officer of the Alabama Bank.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1251 

KA 12-01819 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID O. NEIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

KATHLEEN P. REARDON, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne

Furfure, A.J.), rendered September 26, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon his guilty plea, of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal

Law §§ 110.00, 150.15). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s

challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution has been

preserved for our review (see generally People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,

665), we conclude that defendant’s challenge lacks merit. Defendant

“pleaded guilty to a crime lesser than that charged in the

indictment,” and thus no factual colloquy was required (People v

Richards, 93 AD3d 1240, 1240, lv denied 20 NY3d 1014). Defendant

further contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel

because defense counsel did not explore or address a possible defense

of intoxication. Although defendant’s contention “survives his guilty

plea . . . to the extent that [he] contends that his plea was infected

by the alleged ineffective assistance,” we conclude that defendant

received meaningful representation inasmuch as he received “an

advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the

apparent effectiveness of counsel” (People v Nieves, 299 AD2d 888,

889, lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see

People v Campbell, 106 AD3d 1507, 1508, lv denied 21 NY3d 1002). 

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-461-CV

SCOTT RAY KENYON	APPELLANT

	V.

THE GEO GROUP, INCORPORATED,	APPELLEES

EDISON SANCHEZ, AND ERICA WALDEN	

	------------

	FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	On December 27, 2005, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s November 29, 2005 dismissal order.  The trial court granted appellant’s timely motion for new trial on February 9, 2006, seventy-two days after the date of the dismissal order and while the trial court still had plenary jurisdiction over the case.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (e).

	On February 15, 2006 and March 8, 2006, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial court’s granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot and that the appeal would be dismissed as moot unless any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  Appellant responded, agreeing that the appeal should be dismissed as moot.  

	Accordingly, on this court’s own motion, we dismiss the appeal as moot.  See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith, No. 02-03-00046-CV, 2003 WL 22071455, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 30, 2006