alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8013** 

TERREN C E MAURICE WHITAKER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ALVIN W. KELLER , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle D istrict of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D
. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00702

- TDS

- DPD )

Submitted : June 24 , 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Terrence Maurice Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terrence Maurice Whitaker seek s to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently r eviewed the record and conclude Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Whitaker’s motions for appointment of counsel, for an evidentiary hearing, to grant r elease upon review and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
[No. 23478-9-III.

Division Three.

December 22, 2005.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Linda L. Cross, *Appellant,*and Jeffrey F. Cross, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 87-3-01702-6, Maryann C. Moreno, J., entered September 16, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Kato, C.J., and Thompson, J. Pro Tern.
[No. 56021-2-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### Anthony Mullen, *Petitioner,*v. Physicians Insurance et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 00-2-00986-9, Gerald L. Knight and Stephen J. Dwyer, JJ., entered February 23, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Grosse, J.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
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): 5/9/97

                        NORTHEAST BANCORP
        (exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

          Maine                    01-16123               01-0425066
(State or other Jurisdiction     (Commission File       (IRS Employer
of Incorporation)                Number)                Identification Number)


   232 Center Street, Auburn, Maine                       04210
(Address of principal executive offices)                (Zip Code)

REGISTRANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER, INCLUDING AREA CODE: (207) 777-5950

   (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

ITEM 5 Other Events

    On May 9, 1997, Northeast Bancorp ("the Company") entered into a definitive
agreement to acquire Cushnoc Bank and Trust Company ("Cushnoc"). The agreement,
which has been approved by the Company's Board of Directors and by the Board of
Directors of Cushnoc, is subject to approval by Cushnoc's shareholders and 
receipt of necessary regulatory approvals and is expected to be consummated 
during the third or fourth quarter of 1997.

    Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will issue 2.089 shares for 
each Cushnoc share.  Based upon the Company's current market price and the 
90,000 shares of Cushnoc stock currently outstanding, the transaction has all
approximate value of $2.63 million.

    Cushnoc has approximately $21 million in total assets, which equals 
approximately 8.47 percent of the current total assets of the Company.  Cushnoc
operates two branch locations in the Augusta, Maine area, and at the closing of
the acquisition Cushnoc will be merged into the Company's banking subsidiary, 
Northeast Bank, F.S.B.

    A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 9, 1997 by an 
among the Company, its subsidiary, Northeast Bank, F.S.B., and Cushnoc is filed
herewith as Exhibit 2.1.


ITEM 7 Financial Statements and Exhibits

Exhibit 2.1    Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 9, 1997
               by and among Northeast Bancorp, Northeast Bank, F.S.B.
               and Cushnoc Bank and Trust Company.

                            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.


                                                     Northeast Bancorp
                                                     (Registrant)

                                                     By: /s/ James D. Delamater
                                                     __________________________
                                                         James D. Delamater    
                                                         Its President

May 22, 1997
(Date)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 628

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing certain steel or equipment, products, or systems made with steel that is not melted and 

poured in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. STUPAK (for himself and Mr. LATOURETTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Defense from purchasing certain 

steel or equipment, products, or systems made with steel 

that is not melted and poured in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST PURCHASING CERTAIN 

4 STEEL NOT MELTED AND POURED IN THE 

5 UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of Defense may 

7 not purchase—

8 (1) steel, or 
2

•HR 628 IH 

1 (2) equipment, products, or systems that are 

2 necessary to national security or national defense 

3 and that are made with steel, 

4 that is not melted and poured in the United States except 

5 in cases in which the steel required for the intended use 

6 is not melted and poured in the United States. 

7 (b) NATIONAL SECURITY EXCEPTION.—Subsection 

8 (a) shall not apply with respect to a purchase that the 

9 Secretary of Defense determines is necessary for national 

10 security purposes.

Æ
Exhibit 10.14.4

 




[*] = CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETS, IS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.

 



 

	
Date:
    	
December 5, 2011
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
To:
    	
Management Metric Based Bonus (MBB)   Participants
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
From:
    	
Jim Lejeal
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Regarding:
    	
Q4-2011 (FYE 1/31/2012) MBB Algorithm
    


 

The Rally Management Metric Based Bonus for Q4 2011 will be attached to company performance against total product bookings.

 

The intent is to align the company management with the sales team’s bookings objectives.

 

Goal:   Achieve the Company’s Q4 “assigned quota” (aka “Don’s number”) Total Product Bookings Sales Goal:

 

Company Quota Amount Budget:

 

	
New Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Renewal Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Total Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    


 

Payment Structure:

 

The payment structure is different than prior quarters and allows for significantly more upside as follows:

 

·                  We will continue to have a 90% new bookings threshold to trigger the quarterly MBB at 90%, then

·                  100% of total product bookings will equate to a 100% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  104% of total product bookings will equate to a 104% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  105% of total product bookings will equate to a 125% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  109% of total product bookings will equate to a 129% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  110% of total product bookings will equate to a 176% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  115% of total product bookings will equate to a 184% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  120% of total product bookings will equate to a 192% payment of the quarterly MBB

·                  125% of total product bookings will equate to a 200% payment of the quarterly MBB (consistent with previous quarters the capped total award is at 125%)

·                  “Tiers” are linear and percentages in between will have a proportionate payment (by way of example 108% will pay out at 128%)

 

Anticipated Payout Date:

 

2 to 3 pay periods after close of quarter
ex10-38.htm


EXHIBIT 10.38







 







[On Cadiz Inc. Letterhead]







 


ACCEPTANCE LETTER




 







 



	
CADIZ INC.


550 South Hope Street, Suite 2850


Los Angeles, CA  90071


 

	  










 


Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm my acceptance of the position of Chief Executive Officer of Cadiz Inc. (the “Company”) effective on February 1, 2013.


 


I acknowledge and agree that my agreement to serve as CEO of the Company, and the performance of my duties as CEO, shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any services which I may provide to the Company on behalf of the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck pursuant to the terms of that certain amended and revised Letter Agreement being executed concurrently herewith.


 


I further acknowledge and agree that in consideration of my agreement to serve as CEO of the Company the Company shall pay directly to me a fee of $25,000 per month, to be payable in such periodic increments as we may agree from time to time.


 


I further acknowledge that the terms of this Acceptance Letter may be required to be disclosed in, or filed as an exhibit to, the Company’s annual proxy statement or other reports filed publicly with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).  I further acknowledge and agree that it is my responsibility to ensure that I comply with any disclosure and reporting requirements of the SEC related to my ownership in the Company.


 




If the foregoing accurately describes our arrangement, please sign, date and return to me a countersigned copy of this letter, whereupon my appointment shall be effective as of the date set forth below.


 



	  	
Very Truly Yours


 


 


/s/ Scott S. Slater


Scott S. Slater


 












ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:







CADIZ INC., a Delaware corporation







By:  /s/ Keith Brackpool                                   


        Keith Brackpool


        Chief Executive Officer


 


 


Date:  January 10, 2013
DA 09-0528

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2010 MT 170N

LEN WALLACE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

NORMAN HAYES, MAGTRAC BOLUS PARTNERSHIP,

GERALD HILL, LUCILLE HILL, JACK HEYNEMAN,

RODNEY J. HAYES,

Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 01-0882

Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Arthur V. Wittich and Jason A. Delmue; Wittich Law Firm, P.C.,

Bozeman, Montana

For Appellees:

Tom Singer; Axilon Group, PLLC, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: June 23, 2010

Decided: August 4, 2010

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

August 4 2010
2

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal

OperatingRules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandumdecision shall not be cited

as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court, and

its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in thisCourt’s

quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.

¶2 The District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, ordered

Appellant Len Wallace to pay approximately $2.5 million in attorney’sfeesto the Appellees

(Hays Defendants). Wallace appeals. We affirm.

¶3 The parties have been litigating this commercial dispute in various fora for nearly a

decade. Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace I), 2005 MT 253, ¶ 9, 329 Mont. 23, 124 P.3d 110;

Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace II), 2007 MT 194N, ¶ 3, 339 Mont. 536, 169 P.3d 406 (table).

Four times previously Wallace has appealed the case to this Court. Wallace I; Wallace II;

Wallace v. Hayes (Wallace III), 2008 MT 248, 344 Mont. 523, 191 P.3d 365; Wallace v.

Hayes (Wallace IV), 2008 MT 415N, 348 Mont. 371, 211 P.3d 204 (table). On his fifth

appeal Wallace now contends that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by the District

Court is unsupported by the record.

¶4 We review a district court’s grant or denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.

Kuhr v. City of Billings, 2007 MT 201, ¶ 14, 338 Mont. 402, 168 P.3d 615. Under this

deferential standard of review, we will only reverse a district court if it “acts arbitrarily,

without employment of conscientious judgment, or in excess of the bounds of reason.” Id.
3

¶5 We have decided to determine this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(i)(3) of

our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for memorandum

opinions. It is manifest on the record before us that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in this matter. We therefore affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5307 

To authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated 

by pink lights in honor of breast cancer awareness month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2004 

Mr. COSTELLO (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr. GEPHARDT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to 

be illuminated by pink lights in honor of breast cancer 

awareness month. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ILLUMINATION OF GATEWAY ARCH IN HONOR 

4 OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH. 

5 In honor of breast cancer awareness month, the Sec6 retary of the Interior shall authorize the Gateway Arch 

7 in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by pink lights 
2 

•HR 5307 IH 

1 for a certain period of time in October, to be designated 

2 by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Æ
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

Rackspace Hosting, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-153009) on Form S-8 of Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated February 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof Rackspace Hosting, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year periodended December 31, 2009, and related financial statement schedule II, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009 which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-Kof Rackspace Hosting, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

San Antonio, Texas 

February 26, 2010
Exhibit 31.2
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting
to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial 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 has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 By:
    /s/ Dominick GolioName:
    Dominick GolioTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,506 11,460 5,984 5,568 5,125 4,565 1,397 1,327

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 6,877 6,073 3,996 3,582 2,705 2,322 176 170

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,183 1,136 726 694 399 387 59 55

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,694 4,937 3,270 2,888 2,307 1,935 117 115

Permanent job losers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,447 3,720 2,515 2,140 1,863 1,510 69 69

Persons who completed temporary jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,247 1,218 754 748 444 424 48 46

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 932 464 440 460 439 43 53

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,345 3,207 1,250 1,285 1,676 1,536 419 386

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,316 1,247 274 261 284 269 758 718

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 55.0 53.0 66.8 64.3 52.8 50.9 12.6 12.8

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 9.9 12.1 12.5 7.8 8.5 4.2 4.1

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.5 43.1 54.6 51.9 45.0 42.4 8.4 8.7

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 8.1 7.8 7.9 9.0 9.6 3.1 4.0

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 28.0 20.9 23.1 32.7 33.6 30.0 29.1

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 10.9 4.6 4.7 5.5 5.9 54.3 54.1

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 4.4 3.9 5.0 4.5 3.9 3.3 3.0 2.9

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.4 2.2 7.2 6.7

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 13.0 12.4

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00277

- CR

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN SPENCER

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 15

- 5016

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having cons idered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 13, 2022
# 2011

&8page &P of &N	

# 2012

# 2013

# 2014

# 2015

# 2016

# 2017

# 2018