alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony T. WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1351.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 8, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 17, 2006.

Anthony T. Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn A. Cline, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Lisa Ann Cooney, Steven William Suflas, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews *&*Ingersoll, LLP, Voorhees, New Jersey, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*511Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony T. Walton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims of employment discrimination for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Walton v. Guidant Sales Corp.,*417 F.Supp.2d 719 (D.Md.2006). We deny Walton’s motion for admission of documents. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
##### 



Exhibit 1.2
 Videotron Ltd. / Vidéotron Ltée
 GENERAL BY-LAWS
 BY-LAW ONE
 SHAREHOLDERS
 ANNUAL MEETINGS
 SPECIAL GENERAL MEETINGS
  NOTICE OF MEETING
   1




---



##### 



CHAIRMAN
 QUORUM, VOTING AND ADJOURNMENTS
   RIGHT TO VOTE AND PROXY
 2




---



##### 



SCRUTINEERS
 ADDRESSES OF SHAREHOLDERS
 BY-LAW TWO
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AND TERM OF OFFICE
 ACTS OF DIRECTORS
 POWER TO ALLOT STOCK AND GRANT OPTIONS
 3




---



##### 



POWER TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS
  PLACE OF MEETINGS AND NOTICES
     CHAIRMAN
 4




---



##### 



QUORUM
 VACANCIES AND RESIGNATION
 SOLE DIRECTOR
 BY-LAW THREE
 OFFICERS
 OFFICERS
 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
 5




---



##### 



PRESIDENT
 VICE-PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENTS
 TREASURER AND ASSISTANT-TREASURERS
  SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT-SECRETARIES
  SECRETARY-TREASURER
 6




---



##### 



REMOVAL
 BY-LAW FOUR
 SHARE CAPITAL
 SHARE CERTIFICATES
 TRANSFER OF SHARES
   7




---



##### 



CLOSING OF BOOKS
 TRANSFER AGENTS AND REGISTRARS
 BY-LAW FIVE
 FINANCIAL YEAR
  BY-LAW SIX
 CONTRACTS
  8




---



##### 



BY-LAW SEVEN
 DECLARATIONS
  9




---



##### 



BY-LAW EIGHT
 SEAL
  ENACTED January1st, 2006.Witness the signatures of the President
and the Assistant Secretary of the Company./s/ Robert DépatieRobert DépatiePresident/s/ Claudine TremblayClaudine TremblayAssistant Secretary
 10
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 1

To provide for the counting on January 6, 2005, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2005

Mr. Frist (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Lott) submitted the following 
        concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed toYYYYYY

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
To provide for the counting on January 6, 2005, of the electoral votes 
         for President and Vice President of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Thursday, the sixth day of January 2005, at 1 
o'clock post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution 
and laws relating to the election of President and Vice President of 
the United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their 
Presiding Officer; that two tellers shall be previously appointed by 
the President of the Senate on the part of the Senate and two by the 
Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be 
handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the 
certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and 
acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the 
letter ``A''; and said tellers, having then read the same in the 
presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes 
as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having 
been ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the rules 
by law provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the 
President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the 
vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of 
the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United 
States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the 
Journals of the two Houses.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statements (Nos. 333-97063, 333-06419, 333-41321, 333-67841, 333-85105, 333-107738, 333-127163, and 333-143820) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-38105, 333-46395, 333-104277, and 333-142523) on Form S-3 of EpicorSoftware Corporation of our reports dated March 10, 2008 relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Epicor Software Corporationfor the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

Irvine, California 

March 10, 2008
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MOSES GARZA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2132

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed August 29, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Deno Economou, Judge.

Paul S. Horning and Marc F. Plotnick of 

Plotnick Law, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jason M. Miller, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa; and Suzanne C. 

Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur. 
- 2 -
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 915 

To provide for the duty-free entry of certain tramway cars and associated 

spare parts for use by the city of Portland, Oregon. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the duty-free entry of certain tramway cars 

and associated spare parts for use by the city of Portland, Oregon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TRAMWAY CARS AND ASSOCIATED 

4 SPARE PARTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of the Bureau 

6 of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of 

7 Homeland Security shall admit free of duty 3 tramway 

8 cars (provided for in subheading 8603.10.00 of the Har9 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States) manufac10 tured in Ostrava, Czech Republic, for the use by the city 
2 

•S 915 IS

1 of Portland, Oregon, and imported pursuant to a contract 

2 with the city of Portland, Oregon, and associated spare 

3 parts for such tramway cars (provided for in applicable 

4 subheadings of heading 8607 or other headings of the 

5 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States) im6 ported pursuant to such contract, the foregoing to be en7 tered into the customs territory of the United States by 

8 not later than December 31, 2006. 

9 (b) RELIQUIDATION; REFUND OF AMOUNTS

10 OWED.—If the liquidation of the entry of any of the tram11 way cars or associated spare parts described in subsection 

12 (a) becomes final before the date of the enactment of this 

13 Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Bor14 der Protection, notwithstanding any other provision of 

15 law, shall— 

16 (1) within 15 days after such date, reliquidate 

17 the entry in accordance with the provisions of this 

18 Act; and 

19 (2) at the time of such reliquidation, make the 

20 appropriate refund of any duty paid with respect to 

21 the entry. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   (362,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (132,969)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (132,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JONATHAN JOHNSON, 

 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ No. 296, 2023 

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: February 7, 2024 

 Decided: April 12, 2024 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 

ORDER 

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 

affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s summary dismissal 

of the appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief. Because the appellant, 

Jonathan Johnson, waived his right to a jury trial and chose to plead guilty, he cannot 

avail himself of the “actual-innocence” exception to Superior Court Criminal Rule 

61’s procedural bars.1 In any event, the information contained in the police report 

that Johnson claims the State did not turn over in discovery is neither new evidence 

1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for 

postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial 

and the motion pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule 

of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case 

and renders the conviction invalid). 
2 

nor evidence of Johnson’s actual innocence. We have previously warned Johnson—

who has filed four appeals and two petitions for extraordinary writs relating to his 

convictions in this Court in the last four years—that he could be enjoined from filing 

future appeals or writs raising repetitive claims without leave of the Court,2 and we 

reiterate that warning here.

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice 

2

In re Johnson, 2023 WL 116481, at *2 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

November 16, 2010 Session

IN RE: BECKA L.A.K.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Humphreys County

No. J-6651-03 Anthony L. Sanders, Judge

No. M2009-02405-COA-R3-JV - Filed March 30, 2011

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., concurring and dissenting in part.

The juvenile court found that a material change of circumstances had occurred due

to Mother’s failure to adhere to the parenting plan, thereby repeatedly frustrating and

sometimes preventing Father’s visitation, and that it was in their child’s best interest to be

placed in the custody of her father. I would affirm these rulings.

The finding that Mother failed to adhere to the letter and spirit of the parenting plan

on multiple occasions provides a proper basis for finding a material change of circumstances

under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-101(a)(2)(B). The statute provides:

If the issue before the court is a modification of the court’s prior decree

pertaining to custody, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence a material change in circumstance. A material change of

circumstance does not require a showing of a substantial risk of harm to the

child. A material change of circumstance may include, but is not limited to,

failures to adhere to the parenting plan or an order of custody and visitation

or circumstances that make the parenting plan no longer in the best interest

of the child.

Id. (emphasis added).

I find it particularly significant that the acts and omissions of Mother, which greatly

frustrated, if not prevented, Father’s visitation with his child, are more egregious in this case

than in most cases because these parents live 900 miles apart. Due to the fact Father would

fly to New York to visit his child, the juvenile court realized that Father’s ability to exercise

visitation was greatly dependent upon Mother’s cooperation and sensitivity, or lack thereof,

to the logistical difficulties.
As the majority correctly notes, the juvenile court made a finding that, unlike Mother,

Father “will not defy and obstruct the Order of this Court as to child visitation.” I am in

agreement with the majority’s conclusion that this statement does not evidence an intent on

the part of the juvenile court to punish Mother. Instead, it serves as the explanation for the

trial court’s conclusion that Mother’s failure to adhere to the parenting schedule constitutes

a material change of circumstances based on the facts of this case.

I acknowledge that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the difficulties Father

experienced in attempting to visit with his child were due in whole or in part to Mother’s

failure to adhere to the letter or spirit of the parenting plan. Nevertheless, the juvenile court

made its findings that Mother repeatedly failed to adhere to the parenting plan; although the

evidence on this issue is disputed, in my opinion the evidence does not preponderate against

these findings.

For these reasons, I would affirm the ruling of the juvenile court designating Father

as the primary residential parent.

______________________________

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE

-2-
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on April 10, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Advanced Inquiry Systems, Inc., Hillsboro, OR; Rasco GmbH, Kolbermoor, GERMANY; Geotest-Marvin Test Systems, Irvine, CA; Aeroflex Test Solutions, Stevenage Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM; and Tom Jackson (individual member), Merrimack, NH have been dropped as parties to this venture. Also, Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd. has changed its name to Panasonic Electric Works Co., Ltd., Tsu Mie, JAPAN.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 21, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 26, 2009 (74 FR 8812).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-11825 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Exhibit 3.2









Certificate
of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation




of




Max
Nutrition, Inc.






(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 -
After Issuance of Stock)






Pursuant
to the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, Max Nutrition, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, adopts the following amendment to its Articles of
Incorporation.






1.
            The
      undersigned hereby certify that on the 21st
      day of February 2008, acting by written consent without a meeting, in
      accordance with the provisions of section 78.315 of the Nevada Revised
      Statutes and Article III of the Bylaws of this corporation the Board of
      Directors approved, consented to, affirmed, and adopted the following
      resolution:




RESOLVED,
that the Secretary of the corporation is hereby ordered and directed to obtain
at least a majority of the voting power of the outstanding Common Stock and
Common Stock Equivalents of the corporation for the following
purpose:




To
amend Article I of the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation to provide that
the name of the corporation shall be changed to China Dasheng Biotechnology
Company.”




2.
            Pursuant to the provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes, a majority of
      Max Nutrition,  Inc.’s shares entitled to vote, consented in writing
      to the adoption of an amendment to Article I of the Articles of
      Incorporation to read in its entirety as
  follows:




Article I
The name of the corporation is: China Dasheng Biotechnology
Company.




In witness whereof, the undersigned being the President, CEO and sole officer of
Max Nutrition, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereunto affixes his signature this
20th
day of February 2008.






/s/ Qi
Jijun





Qi Jijun,
President and CEO
Letter agreement between Registrant and Thomas J. Jurewicz



 Exhibit 10.15 
 VMWARE 
  
 June 24, 1999

 Thomas J. Jurewicz 
 962 Florence Lane 
 Menlo Park, CA 94025 
 Dear Tom: 
 I am pleased to offer you a
position with VMware, Inc. (the “Company”) as Vice President of Finance and Operations, commencing on August 1, or sooner, if possible. You will report to Diane Greene, President. Your monthly salary of $11,250 will be paid
semi-monthly in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures. As a Company employee, you are also eligible to receive health care and related benefits for all regular full-time employees. 
 We will recommend to the Board of Directors of the Company that, at the next Board meeting, you be granted an [incentive] stock option entitling you to purchase up to
175,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at the then current fair market value as determined by the Board at that meeting Such options shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Stock Option Plan and Stock Option
Agreement, including vesting requirements. 
 You should be aware that your employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes at will
employment As a result, you are free to resign at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Similarly, the Company is free to conclude its employment relationship with you at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice. In the
highly unlikely event that your employment with the Company is terminated without cause, you will be given 3 months salary as severance. 
 You agree that,
during the term of your employment with the Company, you will not engage in any other employment, occupation, consulting or other business activity directly related to the business in which the Company is now involved or becomes involved during the
term of your employment, nor will you engage in any other activities that conflict with your obligations to the Company. 
 As a VMware employee, you will be
expected to abide by company rules and regulations. You will be expected to sign and comply with a Employment, Confidential Information, Invention Assignment Agreement which requires, among other provisions, the assignment of patent rights to any
invention made during your employment at VMware and non-disclosure of proprietary information. 
  
  
  
  

 Tel (650) 856-3300 • Fax (650) 856-2611 • 3145 Porter Drive, Bldg F • Palo Alto, CA 94304 • www.vmware.com

  








			
	– 2 –	 	June 24, 1999

  
  
 To indicate your acceptance of the Company’s offer, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return it to me. A duplicate original is enclosed for your records. This letter may not be
modified or amended except by a written agreement, signed by an officer of the Company and by you. 
 We are looking forward
to having you join VMware. 
  
 Sincerely, 

/s/ V.J. Richey 
 V.J. Richey 
 Human Resources 
 VMware, Inc. 
  
 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this 
 28th day of June, 1999 
  

	
	
	/s/ Thomas J. Jurewicz
	 [employee name]


  
 Enclosures:
    Duplicate Original Letter