alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 26 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00057
- CV LOU D. VASQUEZ AND N ILDA A. VASQUEZ, Appellant s V. FIREBIRD SFE I, LLC, Appellee On Appea l from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 05077
- E



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated June 20, 2019, we informed appellants the court reporter notified us that the repo rter’s record had not been filed because appellants had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellants to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that appellants had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thestatus of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a

reporter’s record. Appellants’ brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00029-CV

In re Reginald A. Noble

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: January 18, 2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSICA MILLER, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL NO. 14-00468-CG-B

EDWIN J. SPENCE,

EDWIN J. SPENCE, JR.,

PORT II SEAFOOD OYSTER 

 BAR, INC.,

GULF COAST STEAMER, INC., and

THE SHRIMP BASKET, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is 

made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification 

be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, and that Defendants’ Motion 

to Strike Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Evidentiary Submission be DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00468-CG-B Document 55 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.2

Tuesday, April 18, 2000, 09:05 am Eastern Time

Press Release
SOURCE: Bentley Communications Corp.

Bentley Communications Corp. Signs Sales and Marketing Contracts With Taiwanese
Firms

LONG BEACH, California, April 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Bentley Communications Corp.
(OTCBB: BTLY) today announced that it has signed contracts with three
manufacturing companies in Taiwan for Internet and/or industrial sales of their
products in the wholesale and retail arena, worldwide. In addition, Bentley has
agreed to serve as a closeout conduit for select overstock and discontinued
items. Revenues will be underway within the next sixty days as a result of these
contracts.

The first two companies, Emtech and Tai Chi of Taipei, Taiwan, are manufacturers
of consumer and business electronics and telecommunications products, including
cellular phone accessories and batteries. The third, TorTech Co., is a
manufacturer of NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical and fire-resistant) cloth for
military, safety, and related applications.

Warehousing, inventory control and shipping of products will be administered
from the corporate offices in Long Beach, California, through the nearby Port of
Los Angeles or be shipped directly from the manufacturers.

Bentley Communications Corp. has been solicited by many companies in Taiwan for
the provision of exposure and distribution for a wide array of consumer and
industrial products.

"This is yet another indication that our business model in Asia is not only
sound, but effective as well. The ability of Bentley Communications Corp. to
work effectively with Taiwanese companies and help them to effectively introduce
their products to the non-Asia markets. Bentley Communications Corp. is taking
two-pronged approach to sales and marketing. We are putting in place both
Internet and more conventional channels of distribution to give BTLY good
foundation revenues for these and other products as additional contracts are
signed. For example, the products we have signed in this release alone are
projected to yield revenues to Bentley in the seven figure range over the next
two years," said Gordon Lee, President of Bentley Communications Corp.

Bentley Communications Corp. world headquarters is located at 100 Oceangate,
Suite 750, Long Beach, California 90802 and its phone number is (562) 435-5355.
The Hong Kong Corporate Office of Bentleycomm Asia Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of BTLY, is located in the prestigious Central Plaza.

                                                                              58
#### Shirley A. GRAEFF, Administratrix D.B.N. of the Estate of Monroe Hammond, Deceased v. The BOROUGH OF ROCKLEDGE and Rockledge Municipal Authority and George B. Mebus and E. Leva and Sons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 29478.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 22, 1964.

Bank & Minehart, by Melvin A. Bank, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

LaBrum & Doak, by Daniel J. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for Rockledge Municipal Authority.

John J. McDevitt, 3rd, by Peter P. Liebert, 3rd, Philadelphia, Pa., for George B. Mebus.

WOOD, District Judge.

The plaintiif administratrix seeks to add *George B. Mebus, Inc.,*as a party defendant to this wrongful death and survival action. George B. Mebus, in his *individual*capacity as *Township Engineer,*has already been named as a party defendant wherein he was allegedly negligent in his supervision of a sewer construction project. It is further alleged that he failed to require proper shoring of an excavation on this project which collapsed, killing the plaintiff’s decedent, Monroe Hammond, on June 27, 1960, in Rockledge, Pennsylvania.

Suit was instituted on April 7, 1961— more than three years ago. Now the plaintiff having discovered that she overlooked to name George B. Mebus, *Inc.,*as a party defendant requests the Court to correct this oversight and grant her leave to amend the Complaint.

This motion seeks more than a simple amendment to correct an error in the caption. It seeks to bring in a *new*party to the action by adding a corporate defendant not previously a party to the suit. This is clearly unjust when the statute of limitations has run as is the situation in this case. We feel that the balance of justice weighs against the allowance of the amendment.

 Also, the defendant Rockledge Municipal Authority seeks to join George *179B. Mebus, Inc. as a third-party defendant. This motion is made long after the expiration of the six month time limitation imposed by our Local Rule 19. Where some compelling reasons are advanced for the delay by the moving party, joinder has been allowed by this Court. McSparran v. Gamble v. Collins, 223 F.Supp. 127 (E.D.Pa.1963). However, such joinder is a discretionary power to be exercised only after the Court has been satisfied that justice requires it. We have not been satisfied. The only reasons advanced to explain the delay are inadvertence and carelessness on the part of the moving party. Whatever confusion may exist in this record which created the mistaken impression that the corporation was a party cannot be attributed to George B. Mebus, Inc., and thereby provide a basis for joinder. The imminency of trial militates against the joinder.

Motions denied.
#### Andrew Prestigiacomo, Appellant, v June N. Ames et al., Defendants, and Barbara Springer et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 857]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered August 3, 2012. The order granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified *1395as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants,” to dismiss the complaint against them and denied the cross motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this action to quiet title in connection wdth an easement, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted the motion of a group of defendants, who are identified as the “Canandaigua Lake Rights Defendants” (defendants), to dismiss the complaint against them and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion inasmuch as it was based on documentary evidence, i.e., a deed, conclusively establishing a defense to plaintiffs complaint as a matter of law *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; *Thirty One Dev., LLC v Cohen,*104 AD3d 1195, 1196 [2013]; *see generally Camperlino v Town of Manlius Mun. Corp.,*78 AD3d 1674, 1676 [2010], *lv dismissed*17 NY3d 734 [2011]; *Blangiardo v Horstmann,*32 AD3d 876, 879 [2006], *lv dismissed*8 NY3d 939 [2007]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to assert any ground to defeat defendants’ motion. In particular, plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact that the language of the deed with respect to the easement contains conditions subsequent that resulted in reversion or forfeiture of the grant of the easement *(see Stratis v Doyle,*176 AD2d 1096, 1098 [1991]; *Koshian v Kirchner,*139 AD2d 942, 943 [1988]; *Fausett v Guisewhite,*16 AD2d 82, 86-87 [1962]). Plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment seeking a ruling that the easement is, inter alia, “no longer legally valid” was premature.(see CPLR 3212 [a]) and, in any event, lacked merit. Present — Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
Employment Offer Letter - Reyn E. Gallacher



 Exhibit 10.11 
  

			
	

	 	January 3, 2006

 Reyn Gallacher 
 Dear
Reyn: 
 Amedica is pleased to offer you the position of Controller at a salary of $4153.85 per average biweekly pay period which equates to $108,000 per
year. This position is exempt. Amedica provides a drug free work environment; therefore, this offer is conditioned upon you taking a drug test and such test results are negative. Amedica will arrange and pay for this test. We anticipate your
employment to begin on January 9, 2006 which will be your hire date. 
 Upon your hire date, you will be nominated to receive an incentive stock option
award for 40,000 shares of Amedica’s common stock, subject to a 4-year vesting schedule, 10-year option life and approval by Amedica’s Board of Directors. We feel that these stock options are a valuable part of your total compensation
package. 
 As part of this offer, you will be eligible for Amedica’s complete benefits program, including medical, dental, life and long term
disability insurances and our 401(k) retirement plan. Also included are Amedica’s 10 paid holidays, 5 days of personal/sick leave and 15 days of vacation per year. When you report to work, you will be provided with more detailed
information regarding our complete policies and benefits programs. 
 Your employment at Amedica assumes an obligation to maintain confidentiality of
Amedica’s business information and that of its clients, partners and suppliers. By safeguarding such confidential information, Amedica earns the respect and further trust of our clients, suppliers and partners. Thus, as a condition of your
employment, you will be required to sign a standard confidentiality agreement. 
 Amedica is committed to maintaining its leading technology position in the
orthopedic implant field and to the commercialization of revolutionary orthopedic implant products for treatment of joint diseases. Our success depends upon bright, dedicated staff such as yourself. If you are in agreement with the terms of this
letter, please sign below and return one original to our offices. 
  

					
		 		 	Sincerely,
			
		 		 	 /s/ Eugene B. Jones

	615 Arapeen Drive Suite 302	 		 	Eugene B. Jones
	Salt Lake City, UT 84108	 		 	 Vice President – Finance
 Chief Financial
Officer

			
	(801) 583 5100 (phone)	 		 	
			
	(801) 583-8635 (fax)	 		 	Agreed to and Accepted by:
			
	www.amedicacorp.com	 		 	 /s/ Reyn Gallacher

		 		 	Reyn Gallacher
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-60476

Summary Calendar

_____________________

STEPHEN P. SHERWOOD;

SHARON L. SHERWOOD,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Decision of the

United States Tax Court

(16797-95)

_________________________________________________________________

February 26, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this tax protester case, Stephen P. Sherwood and Sharon L.

Sherwood object on multitudinous grounds to the tax court’s

determination of deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties for

the tax years 1991, 1992, and 1993. After a thorough review of the

record and a close study of the briefs, we conclude that the
-2-

Sherwoods’ arguments are all without merit. Indeed, they are

frivolous.

Among the Sherwoods’ complaints are the contentions that the

tax court lacked jurisdiction, that it erred in sustaining the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s assessment of deficiencies,

additions to tax and penalties, and that it abused its discretion

in declaring sua sponte penalties for advocating a frivolous

position.

The Sherwoods’ jurisdictional complaint and most of their

argument on the merits are tied to a belief that they are citizens

of the State of Texas, not the United States. For this reason,

they conclude that they are (1) not subject to most taxes and (2)

permitted to file Form 1040-NR (non-resident). As there is

obviously no validity to the Sherwoods’ concept of citizenship, the

arguments based upon it are frivolous.

The remainder of the Sherwoods’ argument on the merits

revolves around a contention that they owed no taxes for wages

because the labor performed balanced the wage received, resulting

in no net income. As it is unfortunately and manifestly not so,

there is no merit to this argument either.

The Sherwoods’ final contention is that the district court

abused its discretion in assessing a $2500 penalty against each of

them for advancing the wage argument just discussed. I.R.C.
-3-

§ 6673(a) expressly empowers the tax court to assess such a penalty

for advancing a frivolous position, however, and it cannot be said

that the court abused its discretion in doing so in this case.

Indeed, in the light of the fact that § 6673(a) allows for a

penalty of up to $25,000, we are only surprised that the tax court

was so restrained.

For these reasons and those expressed in the tax court’s

careful and patient opinion, its judgment is AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, because this appeal was utterly frivolous, it is also

ORDERED that the Sherwoods show cause within ten days time why

reasonable attorney’s fees and double costs should not be awarded

to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as damages, pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 38.

A F F I R M E D.
##### 



(FAIRMONT LOGO) For immediate release Exhibit 99.1. FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC. ANNOUNCES EFFECTIVENESS OF U.S.
REGISTRATION STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
CONVERTIBLE SENIOR NOTES AND UNDERLYING COMMON SHARES TORONTO, April 8, 2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR) (TSX/NYSE: FHR)
announced today that a Registration Statement on Form F-10 relating to the
resale in the United States of US$270.0 million principal amount of 3.75%
convertible senior notes due 2023, and the common shares issuable upon
conversion of these notes, has been declared effective by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The convertible notes were
originally issued in an unregistered offering in December 2003, and the Form
F-10 was filed with the SEC on April 6, 2004. The convertible notes and common
shares issuable upon conversion thereof are subject to resale restrictions in
Canada and, prior to May 20, 2004, may not be offered or sold to Canadian
persons. FHR will not receive any proceeds from any resale by the selling security
holders of the convertible notes or the common shares issuable upon conversion
of the convertible notes. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of
an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in
which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration
or qualification under the securities laws of any such state. Copies of the
prospectus relating to the offering of the convertible notes and the common
shares issuable upon conversion of the convertible notes may be obtained by
submitting a written request to: Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc., Corporate
Secretary, Canadian Pacific Tower, 100 Wellington Street W., Suite 1600,
Toronto, Ontario M5K 1B7, Canada. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc.  -30- Contact:
    
    Emma Thompson
Executive Director Investor Relations
Tel: 416.874.2485
Email: investor@fairmont.com
Website: www.fairmont.com
##### 



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) MARCH 15, 2005 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 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement On March 15, 2005, Nortel Networks Corporation issued a press release (the Press Release),
attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, announcing that the registrant obtained a new waiver from Export
Development Canada (EDC), the terms and conditions of which are summarized in the Press Release
which is incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the letter agreement containing the waiver to
the EDC Support Facility (as defined in the Press Release) is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.2. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the registrant is Nortel
Networks Corporations principal direct operating subsidiary. Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)

Exhibits99.1

Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on March 15, 2005.99.2

Letter Agreement dated March 15, 2005 between the registrant and EDC.




---



##### 



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/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel  Securities
and Corporate Secretary By:

/s/ Tracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyTracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyAssistant Secretary Dated: March 16, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX  Exhibit No.

Description99.1

Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on March 15, 2005.99.2

Letter Agreement dated March 15, 2005 between the registrant and EDC.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Printing Components Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Herb Adams, Chief Executive 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| |     | Dated this 10th day of April, 2009.                                                                                                                  

HERB ADAMSHerb AdamsChief Executive Officer





















---
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES RYAN, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-450 DECISION

On February 24, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the offense of Count I: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs With Intent to Distribute, a felony.

*91On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are sufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly excessive. The defendant violated the conditions of his probation where he absconded for a number of months. During probation there was no new criminal behavior. Furthermore, the defendant has no prior felonies.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be modified to a commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of twenty (20) years, with fifteen (15) years suspended. The terms and conditions shall remain as imposed in the Judgment of February 24, 2009.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.