alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7670

ANDREW RIVERA, a/k/a Drew,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-94-723)

Submitted: April 17, 1997

Decided: May 2, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John D. Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John

Michael Barton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Rivera appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion for a reduction of sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P.

35(b). We dismiss Rivera's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Rivera's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the district court erred in its reduction of Rivera's sentence from 220 months to 200 months. Under 18

U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997),

we have jurisdiction to entertain [Rivera's] appeal only if

his sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law, (2) was

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, (3) is greater than the sentence specified

in the applicable guideline range, or (4) was imposed for an

offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is

plainly unreasonable.

United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing 18

U.S.C.A. § 3742(a)). Consistent with Congress's intent, jurisdiction

under § 3742(a) is narrowly interpreted. See Hill, 70 F.3d at 323-24.

After reviewing the district court's order, the parties' briefs, and the

applicable law, we conclude that Rivera is unable to demonstrate any

of these jurisdictional prerequisites. Pursuant to Anders, this court has

reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Accordingly, we therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

DISMISSED

 2
Exhibit 10.48
 
  ARBITRON INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 Agreement Amended Effective Date Company you Parties
   1. Engagement . Initial Effective Date Board
 2. Commitment. provided however provided




---



##### 



3. Employment Term Extended Term Employment Term
 4. Cash and Stock Compensation
 Base Salary. Base Salary
 Incentive Bonus. Compensation Committee Annual Bonus Target Bonus
 Equity Compensation.
 Ongoing Grants. DSUs
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Special Acceleration. Section 409A Code
      5. Employee Benefits
 Employee Welfare and Retirement Plans.
 Business Expenses.
 - 3 -




---



##### 



6. Termination of At-Will Employment .
 General
 Termination Without Cause; Retirement; Position Diminishment.
 Initial Term
 provided however
 Bonus Component Exempt
Bonus
 - 4 -




---



##### 



provided,
however
  Change in Control
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Death or Disability.
 Release Requirement Release Release Effective Date th th
     - 6 -




---



##### 



Cause Cause
 Change in Control.
 Position Diminishment Position Diminishment
 Retirement Retirement provided however
 - 7 -




---



##### 



Further Effect of Termination on Board and Officer Positions
 7. Effect of Section 409A of the Code
 Six Month Delay New Payment
Date
 General 409A Principles
 - 8 -




---



##### 



Expense Timing
 8. Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Assignment
 Confidentiality Confidential Information
      - 9 -




---



##### 



provided however
 Business Conduct and Ethics
 Disclosure
 Instruments of Assignment
 Additional Post-Employment Provisions .
 - 10 -




---



##### 



Survival
 9. Non-Competition, Non-Recruitment, and Non-Disparagement
 General
 Non-Competition
 Noncompete Period
 - 11 -




---



##### 



Non-Recruitment
 Non-Disparagement
 Enforcement
 Survival
 10. Miscellaneous
 Notices
 If to the Company:
    
    Arbitron Inc.Office of Chief Legal Officer9705 Patuxent Woods DriveColumbia, MD 21046If to you:
    
    At your last address on file with the Company
 - 12 -




---



##### 



No Mitigation/No Offset
 Waiver of Jury Trial
 Severability.
 - 13 -




---



##### 



Assignment. You
specifically agree that any assignment may include rights under the restrictive covenants of
Sections 8 and 9 successor
 provided however
 No Oral Modification, Cancellation or Discharge.
 Other Agreements
 Survivorship.
 Beneficiaries.
 - 14 -




---



##### 



Withholding.
 Company Policies.
 Governing Law.
 Entire Agreement.
  - 15 -




---



##### 



ARBITRON INC.:By:
    /s/ Philip GuarascioPhilip GuarascioChairman of the Arbitron Board of DirectorsEXECUTIVE:/s/ William T. KerrWilliam T. Kerr - 16 -
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

## **SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Deborah A. Wensel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Deborah A. Wensel   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Deborah A. Wensel       |
| Chief Financial Officer |

Date:   May 12, 2005

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation and will be retained by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1

----
Motion granted and Abatement Order filed October 26 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 2 1

- 00 236

- CV

____________ WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES CORP. , Appellant
V. OILFIELD SPECIALTIES, LLC; DONALD V. UMPHRIES; AND GABOR P. WILLIGER , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 46881

ABATEMENT O RDER Before the court is appellant’s motion to abate this appeal based on the pendency of another related appeal, No. 14

- 20

- 00069

- CV. Appellant contends that because the judgment in this underlying appeal is based on the ostensibly preclusive effect of the judgment challenged in the related appeal, and because the outcome of the related appeal would be at least largely d ispositive of this present appeal, the parties’ and the court’s resources would be wasted if this appeal proceeds before therelated appeal is resolved. As we conclude the motion has merit, we issue the

following order :
The appeal is abated, treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this c ourt’s active docket pending the issuance of the mandate in Appeal No. 14

- 20

- 00069

- CV

. Th is appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss th is appeal o r other dispositive motion. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate th is appeal filed by any party, or the c ourt may reinstate th is appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant

.
#### The Jack Jewett.1

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

April 29, 1885.)

Tea and Tow—Negligence—Order to Start.

B was not part of the duty of a tug, which started to tow a vessel hy a hawser away from a pier, to see that the vessel was ready to move, when she received the order from the ship, “All right; go ahead!” and the tug was held not responsible for damage to a lighter made fast to the ship, which could not cast loose soon enough to avoid injury from the yard of the ship.

In Admiralty.

*Beebe, Wilcox & Hobbs,*for libelant.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for claimants of the tug.

1

 Reported by R. D. & TVyllys Benedict, Esqs., of tlio Now York bar.

Benedict, J.

The only question presented for decision on this occasion is whether the steam-tug Jack Jewett is responsible to the owners of the lighter Enterprise for the damages to the lighter Enterprise and her cargo, caused hy the fact that the Jack Jewett started to tow *928the ship Bengal’ away from a pier when the lighter Enterprise was fast to the ship by lines which could not be cast off soon enough after the ship began to move to prevent the fore-yard of the ship catching upon the lighter’s mast and rigging, whereby the lighter was tipped over, and part of her cargo lost. '

It is proved that the tug did not start the ship until the word, “All right; go ahead !” was given by those in command of the ship to those in charge of the tug. It is also proved that the master of the tug, when he started the ship, did not know that the lighter was alongside the ship, and that he stopped his tug as soon as informed that the lighter's mast had caught on the yards.

Upon these facts, I am of the opinion that the libelant cannot recover against the tug. It was not part of the duty attaching to those in charge of the tug to see that the ship was ready to move. The negligence which caused the damage to the lighter was either negligence of those in charge of the lighter in not moving away from the ship before the ship started, or negligence on the part of those in charge of the ship in directing the tug to start the ship when the ship was not ready to start, owing to the fact that she had a lighter alongside so situated as to be in danger of injury as soon as the ship did start.

The libel against the Jack Jewett is accordingly dismissed, and with costs.
exhibit410.htm


     

    Exhibit
4.10

     

    
      	
              Columbia
      Laboratories, Inc.

            
	
              2008

            
	
              Name:

            
	
              Address:

            
	 
      
	
              City
      & State:

            
	
              Grant
      Number:

            	 
      	
              Grant
      Date:

            	
              /2008

            	
              Yearly
      Vesting Schedule

            
	 
      	
              Beginning

            	
              Percent

            	
              Shares

            
	
              Option
      Type:

            	
              ISO
      or NQSO

            	
              Shares
      Granted:

            	 
      	
              Year
      1

            	
              25%

            	
              25,000

            
	 
      	
              Year
      2

            	
              25%

            	
              25,000

            
	
              Grant
      Price:

            	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              Year
      3

            	
              25%

            	
              25,000

            
	 
      	
              Year
      4

            	
              25%

            	
              25,000

            
	
              Vesting
      Update:

            	
              /09
      @ 25.00%

            	
              Expiration
      Date:

            	
              /2015

            	 
      
	 
      
	 
      
	
              NOTICE
      OF GRANT OF A STOCK OPTION FOR THE

            
	
              PURCHASE
      OF SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF

            
	 
      
	
              Columbia
      Laboratories, Inc.

            
	 
      
	
              Robert
      S. Mills or James A. Meer

            
	
              CEO
      / President/ Sr. Vice President CFO & Treasurer

            
	 
      
	
              By
      affixing your signature to this Notice, you acknowledge receipt of a copy
      of the Agreement and the Plan to which the Agreement and this Stock Option
      Grant is subject and agree that the Options Granted hereunder shall be
      subject to such Plan and Agreement and shall be governed by their terms
      and provisions.

            
	 
      
	 
      
	
              ___________________________

            	 
      	
              ___________

            	 
      
	
              Name:

            	 
      	
              Date
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 Amendment No. 1 to
the Annual Report of Aerosonic Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas J. Hillman, President and 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.



|                    |  |  |  |                                       |  |                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Dated: May 31, 2013 |  |  |  | By:                                   |  | /s/ DOUGLAS J. HILLMAN
|                    |  |  |  | Douglas J. Hillman                   
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

14 , 2015.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 15 -00294- CR

IN RE LEXTER KENNON KOSSIE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 0546166



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 2, 2015, relator Lexter Kennon Kossie filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Denise Collins, presiding judge of the 208th District Court of Harris County , to rul e on his petition for writ of habeas corpus

.2

Relator states in his petition that he filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 2, 2015, but the trial court has not ruled on the petition. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his a lleged harm, and what he seeks is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to

act. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig.

pro ceeding); Ex parte Bates , 65 S.W.3d 133, 134 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). To be entitled to mandamus relief compelling a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion, relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed
or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Layton , 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). However, a court is not required to consider a motion not called to its attention. Layton , 257
S.W.3d at 795.
It is relator’s burden to provide a sufficient record to establish that he is
entitled to relief. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not done so. Relator has not attached any documents to his petition in support of his claim for relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requi ring relator to provide a certified or sworn copy of any document that is3

material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding).

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 10.17


PROMISSORY NOTE




$60,000.00
Executed at Broward County, FloridaSeptember 1, 2010





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Le@P Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 5601 N. Dixie Highway, Suite 411, Fort Lauderdale, Florida  33334 ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of the M. Lee Pearce Living Trust (the "Payee"), the principal sum of SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($60,000.00), together with interest at the “Prime Rate” (as hereinafter defined), as announced from time to time, due and payable in one lump sum of principal and interest on January 8, 2012.  “Prime Rate” shall mean the prime commercial lending rate set forth in the “Money Rates” section of The Wall Street Journal, as announced from time to time.  Principal and interest shall be payable to the Payee at the following address:  16 La Gorce Circle, Miami Beach, FL 33141, or such other place as the Payee may designate.





This Promissory Note (this "Note") is issued subject to the following additional terms and conditions:





1.             Type of Payment.  Payment of both principal and interest shall be made in currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment shall be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts.





2.             Manner of Payment.  Payment shall be made to Payee at the Payee's address set forth above or such other place as Payee may designate in writing.





3.             Interest on Overdue Payments.  From and after the date which is fifteen (15) days after the date upon which any payment of principal hereunder becomes due and payable, if the same is not timely paid, interest shall be payable on all sums outstanding hereunder at fifteen percent (15%) per annum.





4.             Miscellaneous.





(A)          This Note shall be binding upon the Maker and its successors and assigns.





(B)           If any provision hereof shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction or as a result of future legislative action, such holding or action shall be strictly construed and shall not affect the validity or effect of any other provision hereof.





(C)           The validity, interpretation and effect of this Note shall be exclusively governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida, excluding the "conflict of laws" rules thereof.





(D)          This Note may not be amended or modified, nor shall any waiver of any provision hereof be effective, except by an instrument in writing executed by the Maker and Payee.





(E)           In case suit shall be brought for the collection hereof, or if it is necessary to place the same in the hands of an attorney for collection, the Maker agrees to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for making such collections.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Note to be executed as of the day and year first above written.





LE@P TECHNOLOGY, INC.By:
/s/ Timothy C. LincolnName:
Timothy C. LincolnActing Principal Executive Officer
#### Deanna (B.)J., Appellant, v Donald M.B., Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 925]

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted that part of the cross motion of defendant seeking to be relieved of his maintenance obligation based upon his clear and convincing showing of a substantial change in circumstances *(see McGuire v McGuire,*200 AD2d 825 [1994]; *see also Sitler v Sitler,*266 AD2d 202 [1999]). The court abused its discretion, however, in granting that relief effective August 3, 2005 rather than May 22, 2006, the date of application therefor *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; *Rosenberg v Rosenberg,*215 AD2d 365, 367 [1995]). We therefore modify the order and judgment accordingly. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Green, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17735]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 
for the Transfer and Use of a Unique Infrared Laser to University of 
Central Florida

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development, 
and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) announces that, unless there is an 
objection, after 15 days it contemplates granting a Cooperative 
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to University of Central 
Florida, College of Optics and Photonics, 4304 Scorpius Street, 
Orlando, FL 32816-2700.

DATES: Objections must be received within 15 days of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Send written objections or inquires to U.S. Army Aviation 
and Missile Research and Development Center (AMRDEC), ATTN: RDMR-CST 
(ORTA), 5400 Fowler Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, or Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cebbbdafbca3b7e0bcabaabdbaa1a0abe0bcaaabada1a3e3afa3bcaaabade0a3acb6e0a1bcbaaf8ea3afa7a2e0a3a7a2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98edebf9eaf5e1b6eafdfcebecf7f6fdb6eafcfdfbf7f5b5f9f5eafcfdfbb6f5fae0b6f7eaecf9d8f5f9f1f4b6f5f1f4">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Wallace at 256-313-0895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information about CRADAs may be 
found at https://www.amrdec.army.mil/amrdec/doing-business-with.html.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17735 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>