alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    OCTOBER 14, 2004
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED 
  CANADA
    
    000-30758
    
    62-12-62580(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
    Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02     Results of Operations and Financial Condition On October 14, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued a press release
providing a status update on its financial restatement process and other
related matters. Such press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and
furnished in accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the
registrant is Nortel Networks Corporations principal direct operating
subsidiary. Item 8.01     Other Events On October 14, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued the press release
attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated by
reference herein (other than information included on or linked from the
registrants website, referenced in such release, which is not incorporated by
reference into this report). Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)
    
    Exhibits  99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on October 14,
2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES 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. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    
    /s/ William R. Kerr
William R. Kerr
Chief Financial OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Blair F. Morrison
Blair F. Morrison
Assistant SecretaryDated: October 14, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on October 14, 2004.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSHUA E. KOHRS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2247

[January 17, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. 2007CF004834A and 2010CF003627A.

Joshua E. Kohrs, Clermont, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Joanna Matos et al., Petitioners, v Dora Schriro et al., Respondents.

[965 NYS2d 4]

—Determinations of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, dated August 1, 2011, suspending petitioner Matos and petitioner Stevens from their positions as New York City correction officers for 60 days and 30 days, respectively, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul Wooten, J.], entered April 3, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

The determinations that petitioner Matos used excessive force against an inmate and made false and misleading statements, and that petitioner Stevens engaged in misconduct in preparing an official report and made false and misleading statements, were supported by substantial evidence *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]).

The penalty imposed does not shock one’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### State v. Cooper

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(3 July 2007)

No. 371P07

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1076)

2. Def’s “Motion to Deny State’s Motion to Deem Timely Filed Its Response to Def’s PDR”

1. Denied 08/23/07

2. Dismissed 08/23/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Forest Fate, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 469]

— Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), both rendered June 14, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 10-00284 and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 10-00496, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

*957By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his claim that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury (see *People v Benitez,*84 AD3d 826, 826-827 [2011]).

The defendant’s contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, as well as his other contentions raised therein, are based on matter outside the record and, thus, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]; *People v Miller,*68 AD3d 1135, 1135 [2009]). Here, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(cf. People v Crump,*53 NY2d 824 [1981]; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852 [1978]). “ ‘The appropriate vehicle’ ” for reviewing claims “ ‘referring to facts outside of the . . . record is pursuant to CPL 440.10, where matters dehors the record may be considered’ ” *(People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d at 604, quoting *People v Miller,*68 AD3d at 1135). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,508,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,640,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   199,222
<INVENTORY>                                  4,730,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,549,313
<PP&E>                                      95,928,712
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,431,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,017,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,006,294
<BONDS>                                     21,756,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,642,810
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,776,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,017,834
<SALES>                                     25,314,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,314,167
<CGS>                                       23,280,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,280,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               750,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               199,222
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,453
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                890,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                    97,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            792,735
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   792,735
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3

SELECTICA, INC.

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 amendment to the annual report of Selectica, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Heaps, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 7, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    RICHARD
HEAPS   
|Richard Heaps          
|Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| ***  /s/ Timothy J. Wiggins*** | *** *** |
|-------------------------------------|--------------|
|   Timothy J.  Wiggins          |
|   Chief  Financial Officer     |
|   Date: August  8, 2006        |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

1

----
#### Sigurd A. Sorenson, Appellant, v Bridge Capital Corp. et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 22, 2008;

decided February 19, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-00-288, CA-02-81-1)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Tyrone Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Tyrone Williamson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on Williamson’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge and the district court that

Williamson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See United States v. Williamson, Nos. CR-00-

288-1; CA-02-81-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10

Item 5 Other Events

Hand Written Stipulation Agreement of Leonard Ludwig and Bernie Budney

CCVC $ DataNet                                                         1/5/01
Resolution of Differences
Page 1 of 2

    1.   DataNet  (DN) will  work  with  Grant  Thornton  to get the CCVC  audit
         completed,  along  with the DN audit,  within 30 days and with the CCVC
         value in excess of 2 million. DN will follow the required procedure, as
         defined by Ely Mandell, to properly  "domicile" in Nevada.  Afterwards,
         the  appropriate  SEC  documents  will be  modified  accordingly.  Each
         company will pay their own fees.
    2.   DN will receive up to $400,000 from CCVC by being paid 25% on a prorata
         basis of  proceeds  from the  exercise  of the Series A  warrants.  The
         transfer agent will periodically furnish reports of dollars raised. The
         warrants would be exercised when the stock is more than $6.

    3.   DN will receive 25,000  warrants to be held by the BDC attorney for six
         months. The warrants will be in the name of Len Ludwig (1/2) and Bernie
         Budney (1/2); they will have the provision for "cashless exercise" they
         will be sold by the CCVC  designated  market  maker.  The warrants will
         have a 6  month-stop-transfer  and  thus  will  not be  held by the BDC
         attorney.  Budney  &  Ludwig  will  each  pay a  total  of $10  for the
         warranties,  open a  brokerage  account  with  MD  Securities  and  pay
         appropriate brokerage fees.

    4.   Ely Mandell  will retire his DN stock.

    5.   CCVC will prepare the  documentation for this new agreement and for the
         discharge of the old agreement.

    6.   DN (LL&BB)  will have the right to approve or veto the CCVC  nominee to
         the DN Board of Directors.

    7.   DN  has  the  right  to  pursue  separate  financing  alternatives  and
         development paths. CCVC will no longer control the DN checkbook.

    8.   Somehow (to be researched) DN shareholders will gain voting control for
         DN to maintain  autonomy.  BDC preferred A convertible  to DN common is
         the  control  issue and we need to work out how the BDC can have  value
         while DN has control to plot its own course if desired.

                   CCVC & DN                                       1/5/01
                   Page 2 of 2

    9.   These points are agreed to by Len Ludwig and Bernie Budney.
         # Modification
         #3 The Warrants  will have a 6 month stop  transfer and tey will not be
         held by the BDC  attorney.  Budney and Ludwig  will each pay a total of
         $10.00 for these warrants, open a brokerage account with M.D Securities
         and pay appropriate brokerage fees.
         #2 The warrants  would be exercised  when the stock is more then $6.00.


     s/ Leonard Ludwig 1/5/01                        s/ B. Budney 1/5/01
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 

AMENDATORY AGREEMENT 

TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This AMENDATORY AGREEMENT (the “Amendatory Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 7th day of August, 2015 by and among Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”), Lakeland Bank (the “Bank” and, collectively with Bancorp, the “Company”) and Timothy J. Matteson
(the “Executive”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a certain Change in Control Agreement, dated as of October 31, 2013, which
Agreement has been amended from time to time thereafter (as amended, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement
provides for certain terms and conditions of the Executive’s employment in the event of a “Change in Control” (as defined therein); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to clarify certain terms of the severance to be paid thereunder;
and 
 WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Agreement permits the Agreement to be amended by a writing executed by the parties thereto;

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that, effective as of the date first above written, Section 9 of
the Agreement (“Termination Without Cause or Resignation for Good Reason”) is hereby amended by adding the following at the thereof: 

“For purposes of the foregoing, the Executive’s salary and cash bonus shall be determined without regard to any reductions to such
amounts made at the election of the Executive, including without limitation, reductions pursuant to any deferral election under a 401(k) plan or deferred compensation plan or arrangement or contributions made under a “cafeteria plan”
within the meaning of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 
 Except as specifically provided herein to
the contrary, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendatory Agreement to be executed and
the Executive has hereunto set his hand, all as of the date first above written. 
  

							
	 	 	 	  	EXECUTIVE:
			
		 		  	 /s/ Timothy J. Matteson

		 		  	Timothy J. Matteson
				
	 WITNESS:
	 		  		 	
				
	  
	 		  		 	
			
	 	 	 	  	LAKELAND BANCORP, INC.
				
		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas J. Shara

		 		  		 	     Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO
				
	 WITNESS:
	 		  		 	
				
	  
	 		  		 	
			
	 	 	 	  	LAKELAND BANK
				
		 		  	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas J. Shara

		 		  		 	     Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO
				
	 WITNESS:
NO. 07-02-0197-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 21, 2002

	______________________________

	ROY DAY AND $750 CASH BOND, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 154TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMB COUNTY;

	NO. 3196-A; HONORABLE FELIX KLEIN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Proceeding pro se, appellant Roy Day filed a motion for new trial indicating an intent to appeal from the trial court’s default judgment.  The motion for new trial/notice of appeal was untimely filed and thus, we must dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

	On March 4, 2002, the trial court signed a default judgment against Day for forfeiture of a $750 bond for failing to appear to answer a felony charge.  On April 19, 2002, Day filed a motion for new trial alleging he had not received notice of the trial setting and claiming that he was in the county jail at the time of trial.  He also indicated that his failure to appeal was not intentional. 

	By letter dated August 1, 2002, this Court notified Day of the defect and asked that he explain why this proceeding should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Day responded and requested that his appeal not be dismissed because he was hospitalized from a heart attack.  Whether the document filed by Day is interpreted as a motion for new trial or a notice of appeal, it is untimely because either would have needed to be filed by April 3, 2002, within 30 days after the default judgment was signed.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a); see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.  The document filed on April 19, 2002, does not invoke our jurisdiction.  

	Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ15-9-000]

Take notice that on December 19, 2014, City of Colton, California submits tariff filing per 35.28(e): City of Colton 2015 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and Existing Transmission Contracts Update to be effective 1/1/2015.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

*Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 9, 2015.

      ( print page 220)    
Dated: December 24, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-30799 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P