alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-40437 Summary Calendar

MARIA TERESA GARZA, individually and as next friend of Jonathan Lee Garza, Eulalio Garza IV, Christopher Eli Garza, and Cinthia
Michelle Garza, Minors and as Representative of t he Estate of Eulalio Garza III, deceased,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; et al.,

Defendants

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

(C-01-CV-76)

October 30, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM: *

Maria Teresa Garza, et al., (Plaintiffs) are the surviving

spouse and minor children of Eulalio Garza, III, who was killed ing:\opin-sc\02-40437.opn.hrd.wpd

an automobile/train accident while riding in a vehicle owned by his

employer, Country Shop Nursery, and driven by uninsu red fellowemployee, Felipe Ro driguez. Plaintiffs filed suit against State

Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm) for breach of contract

and violation of Article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code because

State Farm has denied them uninsure d motorist coverage under an

automobile insurance policy purchas ed by Garza's employer from

State Farm. The district court had jurisdiction because of

diversity of citizenship.

The parties waived trial by jury and the case was tried to the

court. The district court found for defendant State Farm on all

claims and entered a final judgment that plaintiffs take nothing.

Plaintiffs appealed to this court.

We have car efully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record, and for the reasons stated by

the district court in its "Verdict of the Court" filed February 15,

2002, we AFFIRM the final judgment entered on the same date, that

plaintiffs take nothing. AFFIRMED.
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11
Case 1:11-cv-00625-JEI-JS Document 1 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

t0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142421 & (59)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142421 COA: 292613 Wayne CC: 08-016447-FC JAMEL DONTE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 23, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay proceedings and to remand is DENIED.
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 113
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 114
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 115
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 116
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 117
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 118
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 119
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 120
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 121
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 122
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 123
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 28 Filed 06/27/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 124
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

J.G.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

C.M.,

 Defendant.

Civ. No. 11-2887 (WJM)

 

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

those counts in Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking relief for violations of New Jersey law 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and for the reasons set forth in the

Opinion; and for good cause appearing,

IT IS on this 17th day of November 2011, hereby,

ORDERED that Maryland law applies to Plaintiff’s claims arising from

Defendant’s alleged sexual abuse;

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One,

Six, Seven, Eight and Nine of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

 s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 18 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 99
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16628]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-65,120; TA-W-65,120A


Santee Print Works, Sumter, SC; Santee Print Works, New York, NY; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance on March 27, 2009, applicable to workers of Santee Print 
Works, Sumter, South Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15756).
    At the request of the State agency and company official, the 
Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. 
The workers are engaged in the production of finished fabric.
    New findings show that the New York, New York location of Santee 
Print Works also experienced an employment decline during the relevant 
period. Workers at the New York, New York facility provide sales and 
accounting functions directly supporting and sufficiently under the 
control of the Sumter, South Carolina production facility of the 
subject firm.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to cover 
workers at the New York, New York location of Santee Print Works.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Santee Print Works who were adversely affected by increased 
imports of finished fabric.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-65,120 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Santee Print Works, Sumter, South Carolina (TA-W-
65,120), and Santee Print Works, New York, New York (TA-W-65,120A), 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after February 3, 2008, through March 27, 2011, are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington DC, this 26th day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-16628 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Case 2:11-cr-00193-WJM Document 25 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 95
Case 2:11-cr-00193-WJM Document 25 Filed 12/06/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 96
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chad VanDusen, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 437]

Rose, J.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment stemming from a home invasion in the Town of New Berlin, Chenango County, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the first degree. However, at the sentencing hearing he expressed a desire to withdraw his plea of guilty because “[h]e [felt] that he was coerced into his plea when he was in front of the [c]ourt last time.” In the absence of any further explanation of the request, County Court denied defendant’s motion without a hearing and he was sentenced to, among other things, a term of imprisonment of 10 years. In addition, he orally waived his right to appeal at the time of his plea, and he affirmed the waiver both orally and in writing at the conclusion of his sentencing hearing. Contending that County Court erred in failing to conduct a searching inquiry following his assertion at the sentencing hearing that he felt he had been coerced, defendant appeals and we affirm.

Inasmuch as defendant affirmed his waiver of his right to appeal both orally and in writing following County Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw, we find that his challenge to the extent of County Court’s inquiry upon that motion to be precluded by his waiver. Although the underlying claim of coercion survives a valid appeal waiver *(see People v Bruning,*45 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007]), defendant challenges, as limited by his brief, only the trial court’s decision to summarily deny the motion without a hearing. Such an argument is “addressed merely to the adequacy of the procedures the court used” in *1032deciding defendant’s motion to withdraw and, therefore, it “may effectively be waived by a voluntarily and intelligently made agreement entered in connection with a sentence or plea bargain” *(People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; *see People v Di Donato,*87 NY2d 992, 993 [1996]; *People v Wright,*256 AD2d 643, 646 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 880 [1999]).

In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would find defendant’s argument to be unavailing. The record reveals that, once defendant’s claim of coercion was advanced, County Court inquired of defense counsel as to the basis for this claim and, when no elaboration was offered, denied the motion. Considering that the record is barren of any evidence of coercion and defendant was afforded an opportunity to present his claim to the court, County Court’s inquiry was adequate and its denial of defendant’s motion was not an abuse of discretion *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543-544 [1993]; *People v Smith,*270 AD2d 719, 720 [2000]; *People v Anderson,*270 AD2d 509, 510 [2000], *lv denied 95*NY2d 792 [2000]; *People v Stamps,*268 AD2d 886, 888 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 925 [2000]; *People v Feliciano,*242 AD2d 787, 787 [1997]).

In light of our conclusion, we need not reach defendant’s double jeopardy argument.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
AMGN-EX10.17_2012.12.31 10K






Exhibit 10.17
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
AMGEN INC. EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN
(AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)


The Amgen Inc. Executive Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated, Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective December 13, 2012, as follows:


The following paragraph shall be inserted immediately following the second paragraph in Section VI:


If a Participant engaged in misconduct that caused serious financial or reputational damage to the Company during any performance period, including a previous performance period, the Compensation Committee may determine that an award has not been earned or may consider such conduct when determining the amount of any award. This provision is in no way intended to limit any other action that the Company could take against a Participant (including other disciplinary actions (up to termination), ordinary course performance considerations, disclosure of wrongdoing to the government and pursuit of any other legal claims against such Participant).




To record this First Amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, effective December 13, 2012, Amgen Inc. has caused its authorized officer to execute this document this 7th day of January, 2013.


AMGEN INC.
By:  /s/ Brian McNamee
Brian McNamee
Senior Vice President
Human Resources



1
EX-10.20



 EXHIBIT 10.20 
 Written Description of Provident Financial Services, Inc.’s 
 2013
Annual Cash Incentive Plan 
 2013 Cash Incentive Compensation. On January 31 2013, the Board of Directors of
Provident Financial Services, Inc. (the “Company”), on the recommendation of its Compensation Committee, approved an annual performance-based incentive program for the payment of incentive cash compensation to certain officers and
employees of The Provident Bank, the Company’s wholly owned savings bank subsidiary, including senior executive officers. Cash incentive payments will be based primarily on the Company’s 2013 financial performance compared with certain
targets (the “Corporate Targets”). Incentive payments based on the Company’s 2013 financial performance may be made if the Company meets or exceeds 95% of any of the Corporate Targets (“Threshold”). 

For senior executive officers (including the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer), 100% of
the incentive payment that may be made will be based on the Company’s 2013 financial performance using the following Corporate Targets that relate to the Company’s business plan and strategic objectives: (i) earnings per share
(weighted 25%); (ii) net income (weighted 25%); (iii) efficiency ratio (weighted 25%); and (iv) return on average assets (weighted 25%). 
 For other officers and employees eligible to participate, a portion of the incentive payment that may be made will be based on the Company’s 2013 performance using the same Corporate Targets. A
portion of the incentive payment will also be based on individual performance against personal goals and objectives, and may be paid whether or not Corporate Targets have been met. 

Incentive payments will be a percentage of the employee’s base salary. Using estimated 2013 base salary levels and the current
number of employees that could participate, the total cash incentive payments that may be made for 2013 would range from approximately $3.9 million at the Threshold level up to $13.0 million at the Maximum level.
# j OuIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 07-0011

IN THE MA11EROF CALLING A RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE TOACTIVE SERVICE 

# FILED AUG 15 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State or Montana ORDER

TheHonorable Robert L. Deschamps III, Judge ofthe District Court forthe Fourth Judicial District ofthe State ofMontana, has requested the assistance ofretired District Judge Karen S. Townsend to assume jurisdiction of the Law and Motion calendar in Missoula County on October 17, 2023. Judge Townsend has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA,has advised that she is agreeable to assistingthe Fourth Judicial District Court with the above-listed matter. IT ISHEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Honorable Karen S. Townsend, retired District Judge, is hereby called to active service in the District Court ofthe Fourth Judicial District ofthe State ofMontana, to assume judicial authority of the Law and Motion calendar in Missoula County on October 17, 2023. Judge Townsend is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, opinions, and orders, including fmal resolution ofsaid matters. 2. For all active service, Judge Townsend shall be paid the salary compensation to which she is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be reimbursed. 3. A copy ofthis Order shall be filed with the Clerk ofCourt ofMissoula County, with the request that this Order be sentto all counsel ofrecord in the above-listed matters. 08/15/2023

Case Number: PR 07-00114. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to the Honorable Robert L.

Deschamps III, the Honorable Karen S. Townsend, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court Administrator. The ChiefJustice enters this Order pursuant toArticleVII, Section 6(3)ofthe 1972 Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation thereof. 4 /

- 1-. DATED this 16

- day ofAugust, 2023.

ChiefJustice

2
# SETA01

# SS45011

# SS45021
ex109.htm


Exhibit 10.9




 


OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE


 


Effective January 1, 2013, Atlanticus Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) will pay each outside director who is independent in accordance with the NASDAQ and SEC rules governing director independence (an “Eligible Director”) the following for service to the Company:


 



	
Annual Cash Retainer

	 	$	50,000	 
	
Attendance Fee for Each Board Meeting (including telephonic attendance)

	 	$	2,500	 
	
Attendance Fee for Each Committee Meeting (including telephonic attendance)

	 	$	1,000	 










In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $25,000.  The Chairman of each of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $10,000.   The Annual Cash Retainer and the Committee Chair fees will be paid in quarterly installments.


 


Each Eligible Director also will receive an annual restricted stock award of 16,000 shares.  The restricted stock award will vest in two equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date.


 


The Company also will reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses that are incurred in connection with board and committee meetings.
#### Bravo Realty Corp. et al., Respondents, v Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 360]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 11, 2005, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment declaring that defendant insurer is obligated to defend plaintiffs, its insureds, in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The duty to defend is “exceedingly broad” and an insurer will be required to defend its insured whenever the allegations of the complaint suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage *(see Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v Cook,*7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006]). Here, the complaint in the underlying action seeks recovery, at least in part, on the theory that negligence on the part of plaintiff insureds proximately caused the alleged damages and, as such, alleges conduct falling within the subject policy’s coverage. The allegations of negligence are not necessarily based on violations of lease obligations, as defendant argues *(see Duane Reade v SL Green Operating Partnership, LP,*30 AD3d 189 [2006]). That the underlying complaint also seeks recovery on theories alleging intentional conduct and breach of contract arguably not within the coverage, does not, given the allegations that do fall within the coverage, avail defendant insurer insofar as it seeks to avoid providing its insureds a defense *(Technicon Elecs. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co.,*74 NY2d

*44866, 73-74 [1989]). Nor has defendant insurer shown that the allegations of the complaint cast the pleading “ ‘solely and entirely within the policy exclusions’ ” it invokes *(see Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford,*7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006], quoting *Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero,*79 NY2d 153, 159 [1992]). The record does not permit us to conclude, as a matter of law, that the damages claimed in the underlying action are barred by the policy’s exclusions for known loss, expected or intended property damage, or discrimination, and we find defendant’s interpretation of the policy’s breach of contract exclusion untenably broad *(see Hotel des Artistes, Inc. v General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am.,*9 AD3d 181, 189-193 [2004], *lv dismissed*4 NY3d 739 [2004]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
Case 2:11-cv-01662-SDW -MCA Document 11 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 49
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 572
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 573
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 574
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 575
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 576
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 577
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 578
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 579
Case 3:11-cv-02923-JAP-TJB Document 29 Filed 02/23/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 580
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Craig Turner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




MEPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.Dated:May 16, 2011By:/s/ Marc T. RayMarc T. RayChief Financial Officer