alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re: George SALEMO, Petitioner.

No. 06-3730.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Aug. 31, 2006.

Filed: Oct. 25, 2006.

George Salerno, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before: Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

George Salerno has filed a mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, seeking, in essence, to compel the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to comply with an order issued by this Court in his prior action docketed at C.A. No. 04-1530, *see In re Salemo,*130 Fed.Appx. 564 (3d Cir.2005), and assert jurisdiction over his motion filed pursuant *150to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After Salerno filed his mandamus petition, the District Court entered an order rescinding its prior order wherein it had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his § 2255 motion. In accordance with our decision in *In re Salemo,*130 Fed.Appx. at 566, the District Court indicated that it would consider Salerno’s motion as if it were the first § 2255 motion filed by petitioner. Additionally, the District Court entered an order on October 5, 2006, directing the government to file a response to Salemo’s § 2255 motion within thirty days.

Accordingly, insofar as the District Court has done that which Salerno has sought to have this Court compel it to do, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied as moot.
No. 904.

#### Landman, Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes, *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

March 2, 1942.

*Messrs. Huston Thompson*and *Oscar P. Mast*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Clark,*and *Messrs. J. Louis Monarch*and *Bernard Chertcoff*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
Warrant Transaction - JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA



 Exhibit 10.9 
 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association 
 P.O. Box 161 
 60 Victoria Embankment 
 London EC4Y 0JP 
 England

 December 3, 2007 
 Penn Virginia
Corporation 
 Three Radnor Corporate Center, Suite 300 
 100
Matsonford Road 
 Radnor, PA 19087 
 Attention: Frank Pici

                   Vice President & CFO 
  

	Re:	Warrant Transaction Amendment 

 Penn Virginia Corporation
(the “Company”) and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, London Branch (“Dealer”) have entered into a confirmation dated November 29, 2007 (the “Confirmation”) relating to Warrants on
shares of common stock, par value USD 0.01, of the Company, issued by Company to Dealer. This letter agreement (this “Amendment”) amends the terms and conditions of the Transaction (the “Transaction”) evidenced by
the Confirmation. 
 Upon the effectiveness of this Amendment, all references in the Confirmation to the “Transaction” will be
deemed to be to the Transaction as amended hereby. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Confirmation. 
  

	1.	Amendments. The Confirmation is hereby amended as follows: 

  

	 	a.	Number of Warrants. The “Number of Warrants” shall be “1,593,072”. 

  

	 	b.	Premium. The “Premium” shall be “USD 7,274,922.60” 

  

	 	c.	Maximum Amount. The number “4,160,000” set forth in Section 9(k)(i) of the Confirmation is hereby replaced with the number “4,780,000”.


  

	2.	Effectiveness. This Amendment shall become effective upon execution by the parties hereto. 

  

	3.	No Additional Amendments or Waivers. Except as amended hereby, all the terms of the Transaction and provisions in the Confirmation shall remain and continue in full force and
effect and are hereby confirmed in all respects. 









	4.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if all of the signatures thereto and
hereto were upon the same instrument. 

  

	5.	Governing Law. The provisions of this Amendment shall be governed by New York law (without reference to choice of law doctrine). 

  

 2 








 Please confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth the terms of our agreement by executing this
Amendment and returning it in the manner indicated in the attached cover letter. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
as agent for JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jeff Zajkowski
	Authorized Signatory
	Name:	 	Jeff Zajkowski


  

			
	 Confirmed as of the
 date first above
written:

	
	Penn Virginia Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Nancy M. Snyder
	Name:	 	Nancy M. Snyder
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President,
 General Counsel
and
 Corporate Secretary


  

 3
#### Ruth Kassover et al., Respondents, v PVP-GCC Holdingco II, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. Prism Venture Partners, LLC, et al., Nonparty Appellants.

Submitted July 6, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

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 and Judge Smith taking no part.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00275

- CR

NARCISO DOMINGUEZ JR.

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2012

- DCR

- 1391

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. June 5, 2014
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROMEO A. DELUCA
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1761

[ June 2, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; William L. Roby , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562019CF001865A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell

, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garrett Thornburg, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Garrett Thornburg  
|Garrett Thornburg      
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 28, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30364 Conference Calendar

KARSTON KEELEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-332-D

-------------------- October 29, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Karston Keelen (“Keelen”), Louisiana state prisoner #125690, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he was denied protective custody. Keelen filed this interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction. This court lacks jurisdiction over the denial of an application for a TRO. See Faulder v. Johnson , 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999). However, the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction is anNo. 02-30364 -2- immediately appealable interlocutory order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). This court will not address Keelen’s appeal from the denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel because this court previously dismissed Keelen’s appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because Keelen has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits of his claims. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell , 248 F.3d 411, 419 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the appeal from the district court’s denial of a TRO is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The district court’s denial of injunctive relief is AFFIRMED.
# Lightning-caused wildfires

Annual Lightning-Caused and Human-caused Fires and Acres by Geo area
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                              WOLVERINE TUBE, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three-month period ended:
                                                          -------------------------
                                                             March 29,  March 30,
                                                                1997       1996
                                                             ---------  ---------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>    
Net income applicable to common shares ...................    $ 8,767    $10,193
                                                              -------    -------
Weighted average common shares outstanding ...............     13,980     13,672

Common equivalent shares outstanding .....................        260        544
                                                              -------    -------
Weighted average common and common equivalent shares
outstanding (1) ..........................................     14,240     14,126
                                                              =======    =======

Net income per common share ..............................    $   .62    $   .72
                                                              =======    =======
</TABLE>




------------------------------
(1)      Represents shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options based
         upon the treasury stock method using the average market price. As fully
         diluted shares outstanding are the same as primary shares outstanding
         for all periods presented, net income per common share on a
         fully-diluted basis is not separately presented.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40729

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DUSTIN JAMES FAULKNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 689

Filed: October 2, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge. 

Appeal from judgment of conviction and three-year determinate sentence for 

aggravated battery, dismissed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben Patrick McGreevy, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Dustin James Faulkner pled guilty to aggravated battery, 

Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a) and 18-907(1)(a). As part of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated 

to a three-year determinate sentence and Faulkner agreed to waive his right to appeal his 

sentence. The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Faulkner to a 

determinate term of three years to run concurrently with the other sentences Faulkner was 

serving.

1

 Faulkner now appeals, contending only that his sentence is excessive.

 

1 Before sentencing, Faulkner filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his 

sentence. The district court declined to rule on the motion, as no judgment or sentence had been 

entered. 
2

The State argues this appeal should be dismissed because Faulkner waived his right to 

appeal his sentence. We agree. A waiver of the right to appeal a sentence, as a component of a 

plea agreement, is valid and enforceable if it was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. 

State v. Murphy, 125 Idaho 456, 872 P.2d 719 (1994). See also I.C.R 11(f)(1). Faulkner has not 

presented any argument as to why the waiver should be deemed invalid or unenforceable: he 

does not challenge the validity of the waiver provision in the plea agreement, does not contend 

the State violated the plea agreement, and does not claim that he did not enter into the plea 

agreement voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. As such, we will enforce the waiver. The 

appeal is hereby dismissed.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 





Exhibit 10.5


Summary of Fiscal 2008 Target
Short-Term Incentive Percentages for the

Named Executive Officers of Lennox
International Inc.


On December 6,
2007, the Company’s Compensation Committee, established target short-term
incentive percentages for each of Todd M. Bluedorn, the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer, Scott J. Boxer, the Company’s Executive Vice President
and President and Chief Operating Officer of Service Experts Inc, and Susan K.
Carter, the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, ranging from 70% to 100% of the named executive officer’s annual
base salary based on performance metrics comprised of earnings and cash flow.
For named executive officers that are also Presidents of a business segment,
50% of such executive officer’s target will be based on his business
segment’s results and 50% will be based on aggregate results of the
Company. 50% of the target payment may be achieved with the defined threshold
performance and up to 225% of the target payment may be achieved with the
defined maximum performance.








6
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 12

- 00536

- CV John Albert HUTTO , Individually and d/b/a Utopia Ranch Realty, Appellant

v. Robert L. CLODFELTER , Appellee From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas Trial Court No. 11

- 07

- 028210

- CV Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2013 JOINT MOTION TO VACATE AND DISMISS GRANTED; VACATED AND DISMISSED The parties have filed a joint motion stating they have fully resolved and settled all issues in dispute. The parties ask that we vacate the tr ial court’s judgment , dismiss the case with prejudice , and dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e)

. The motion does not recite any agreement of the parties as to costs.04

- 12

- 00536

- CV

- 2

- We grant the motion. The judgment of the trial court is vacated without reference to the merits, the case is dismissed with prejudice , and this appeal is dismissed as moot. All costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(d)

. PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         333,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,202,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                   649,731
<INVENTORY>                                 20,098,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,572,790
<PP&E>                                     191,358,199
<DEPRECIATION>                              96,325,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             168,332,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,994,727
<BONDS>                                     55,993,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,481,360
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,341,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               168,332,072
<SALES>                                     61,292,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,292,306
<CGS>                                       46,193,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,193,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (13,246)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,157,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,094,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,321,990
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,772,471
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,772,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,847
<PP&E>                                           5,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,227
<SALES>                                         57,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,777
<CGS>                                           47,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                       853
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Ted I. Kaminer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Bio-Imaging Technologies,Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing 
 

 
theequivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Ted I. Kaminer   Ted I. Kaminer   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)