alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 100 The People &c., Respondent, v. Ross Campbell, Appellant.

Abigail Everett, for appellant. Ramandeep Singh, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Under both federal and state constitutional standards, defendant "bears the burden of establishing his claim[s] that counsel's performance is constitutionally deficient" (People v Nicholson, 26 NY3d 813, 831 [2016]). Defendant "must demonstrate

- 1 -- 2 - No. 100

the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's alleged failure" (id.). On this record, defendant has not met that burden.

Defendant presents ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are "of the type where 'it . . . [is] essential[] that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel bebottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or postconviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10'" (People v Henderson, 28 NY3d 63, 66 [2016], quoting People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852, 854 [1978]). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur. Decided October 12, 2017

- 2 -
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 13263

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:16

- cv - 00166

- JSM

- MAP ANTONIO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, FERNANDO ALEGRIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, HILLARY MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JUDHI T SANTANDER,
Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,

versus
UBER TECHNOLOGIE S, INC.,
Defendant

– Appellee

.

________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 18, 2017) Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:

* The Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger , United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida , sitting by designation.

Case: 16-13263 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 1 of 22

The a ppellants, who previo usly worked as drivers for Uber Techno logies, Inc., sued Uber asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. , the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7434, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act , Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq . When Uber moved to compel arbitration in the district court, the drivers opposed the motion on the ground that the entire written agreement they had entered into was
unconscionable under both California and Florida law. Now, on appeal, the drivers asse rt three new arguments

. They argue that they are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. § 1, that the delegation clause is inapplicable because of the FAA exemption, and that the class waiver in Uber’s software agreement violates the National Labor Relations Act under 29 U.S.C. § 157. In exercise of our discretion , we choose not to address these arguments, which are raised for the first time on appe al. S ee Access Now,
Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing “ a case that is wholly different ” from the case litigated below)

. W e therefore affirm the district court’s decision to compel arbitration.
AFFIRMED. Case: 16-13263 Date Filed: 05/18/2017 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)


                                  EXHIBIT 11
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                         Three Months Ended
                                              March 31,
                                                1997
                                                ----


PRIMARY LOSS PER SHARE:          (in thousands, except per share data)

NET LOSS                                        ($607)
/ WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES                       1,265
------------------------------                 ------
PRIMARY NET LOSS PER SHARE                     ($0.48)
==============================                 ======




FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE:

NET LOSS                                        ($607)
/WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES                        1,265
------------------------------                 ------
FULLY DILUTED NET LOSS
PER SHARE                                      ($0.48)
==============================                 ======

Notes:
- Weighted average shares outstanding have been adjusted to reflect the 10% 
  stock dividend declared April 1, 1997.
ex_10-4.htm




FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE


RUBY TUESDAY, INC.


2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN












THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is made as of this 5th day of January, 2012, by Ruby Tuesday, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia (hereinafter called the “Company”).







W I T N E S S E T H:







WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) under an amended and restated indenture dated as of July 9, 2003, as amended by the First, Second and Third Amendments thereto;







WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan primarily to establish a minimum duration for performance periods and to increase the minimum forfeitability period for restricted stock awards that are not subject to performance goals; and







WHEREAS, this Fourth Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment.












NOW, THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of date indicated below, as follows:







1. By deleting Section 1.1(l-2) in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:







“(l-2)           ‘Performance Period’ means, with respect to a Stock Incentive, a period of time of not less than twelve (12) months’ duration within which the Performance Goals relating to such Stock Incentive are to be measured.  The Performance Period, if any, will be established by the Committee at the time the Stock Incentive is granted.”


 


2.           By deleting Subsection (b) of Section 3.4 in its entirety and substituting therefor the following:







“(b)           Any Stock Award that does not contain forfeitability provisions based upon Performance Goals shall vest over a period of no less than thirty (30) months, subject to exceptions for death, Disability, retirement and similar events as may be prescribed by the Committee.”












The provisions of the Plan, as amended by this Fourth Amendment, shall become effective with respect to Stock Incentives granted on and after the date it is approved by the Board of Directors of the Company.









  





  











  






 


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












RUBY TUESDAY, INC.












By:      /s/ Samuel E. Beall, III   


Samuel E. Beall, III


Chairman of the Board,


Chief Executive Officer and President


ATTEST:







By:          /s/ Scarlett May 


Scarlett May


Secretary







[CORPORATE SEAL]
ex109.htm



Exhibit 10.9



	 	 	 	
888 N. Euclid Ave., Rm. 204


P.O. Box 210158


Tucson, AZ 85721-0158


Office of Technology Transfer


Tel: (520) 621-5000


	 	 	 	www.ott.arzona.edu
	 	 	 	 





 




 


 


AMENDMENT


TO


EXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA


AND


SOLTERRA RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


This Amendment to the EXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND SOLTERRA RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the "Agreement") is made effective as of the December 17th, 2010 and is between THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, an Arizona body corporate with its principal campus in Tucson, Arizona 85721 (the "UNIVERSITY"), and SOLTERRA RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an Arizona Company with its principal place of business at 7700 South River Parkway, Tempe, AZ 85284 ("LICENSEE").


 


UNIVERSITY and LICENSEE agree to amend Articles 3.1.b, 3.2, and 3.4 to read as follows upon execution of this Amendment:


 



	
  

	
3.b Minimum Annual Royalty: A minimum royalty according to the following schedule.







 



	
  

	
 3.b.i  The Minimum Annual Royalty payment will be creditable against Royalties due in each respective royalty year, July 1 to June 30th following the due date.







 




	
Due Date

	 	
Minimum Royalty Due


	
June 30, 2011

	 	
$25,000


	
December 31, 2011

	 	
$50,000


	
June 30, 2012

	 	
$125,000


	
Each June 30 of every year thereafter

	 	
$200,000









 


3.b.ii  The Annual Minimum Royalties will be adjusted by the cumulative percentage change in the CPI-W Consumer Price Index between July and the June preceding the date on which the payment in question is payable.


 



	
3.2 

	
Prior Patent Costs: In partial consideration for the rights granted herein, LICENSEE shall pay remainder of outstanding Prior Patent Costs, totalling Four Thousand, Two Hundred, Eighty Dollars and Seventy Six Cents ($4280.76) and due no later than February 28, 2011.







 



	
3.4 

	
License Fee: A License Fee of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) shall be paid in two installments: the first installment of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) due on December 17, 2010; the second installment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) due no later than February 28, 2011.







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has executed this Agreement in duplicate originals by their respective and duly authorized officers on the day and year below written.


 


 




	ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS    	 	 	SOLTERRA RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES	 
	  

on behalf of

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	  

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Patrick L. Jones

	Date:   12/20/2010	 	
/s/ 

	Date:   
	 	 	 	(Signature)	 
	

Name: Patrick L. Jones



	 	 	
Name: Steven Squires 

	 
	

Title: Director Office of Technology Transfer



	 	 	
Title: President and CEO
f8k021111ex10xiv_kurrant.htm



Exhibit 10.14


 


Sales Contract



	
 


	
Purchaser (Party A): Shandong Zhidali Industrial Co., Ltd.

	
Contract Signed Location: Beijing


	
Supplier (Party B): Beijing Xinlianyu Technology Co., Ltd.

	
Contract Signed Date: 10/27/2010


	
(Collectively, the “parties”)

	  












    Upon negotiation, the parties have agreed to the following terms:


 



	
Name

	
Model

	
Unit

	
Amount

	
Unit Price ¥

	
Total Price¥

	
Delivery Date


	
Top-Box

	
V3-7011016205

	
Pieces

	
1,000

	
185.00

	
185,000.00

	  
	
The following is left blank

	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
Total Purchase Price

	
¥185,000.00













	1. 	
Quality Inspection and Acceptance: Follow the technology Specifications


	2. 	
Requirements for Supplier and Raw Materials:


	3. 	
Requirements for Packing and Costs:


	4. 	
Delivery Manner, Location and Costs:


	5. 	
Payment Settlement and Time: Party A shall deposit 30% of the total purchase price and the 60% of the total purchase price shall be payable upon delivery; the balance of 10% of the total purchase price shall be paid within one (1) year.


	6. 	
Liabilities: Follow the Economic Contract Law


	7. 	
Miscellaneous:


	8. 	
This Contract shall executed in two copies with one copy to each party (faxed copy shall deem original) and shall be effective upon the parties’ signatures.


	Valid Through: 12/31/2011











	
Purchaser [Seal]

	 	
Supplier [Seal]


	
Name: Shandong Zhidali Co., Ltd.

	 	
Name: Beijing Xinlianyu Technology Co., Ltd.


	
Address: Zhidali Technology Zone, 1 Zhidali Road, Economy Development Zone, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province

	 	
Address: 2 Shang’ao Shijizhongxin, Bldg A, Ste. 1601, Xisanqi, Changping District, Beijing


	
Corporate Representative:

	 	
Corporate Representative:


	
Agent:

	 	
Agent:


	
Tel.:

	 	
Tel.: (86)1-(illegible)


	
Fax: 0632-3957333

	 	
Fax: (illegible)


	
Bank:

	 	
Bank: China Agricultural Bank Changping District Branch Xisanqi Office


	
Bank Account:

	 	
Bank Account: 11-082201040031622


	
Zip Code:

	 	
Zip Code: 10096


	
[Corporate Seal ]

	 	
[Corporate Seal-Seal for Contract Only]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6570

ROBERT DEMURO,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WILL SESSOMS, Mayor of Virginia; COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; SHERIFF KEN STOLEY, overseeing 

V.B.C.C.; DEPUTY DIGGS, overseeing cell classifications,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00158-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: September 14, 2015 Decided: October 13, 2015

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Demuro, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Demuro appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

this action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court 

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Demuro v. Sessoms, No. 2:14-cv-00158-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. 

Apr. 3, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos Alberto Ramos GONZALEZ aka William Carrera aka Beto Carolos Alberto Ramos Gonzalez, Appellant.

No. 06-2962.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 8, 2008.

Filed Jan. 24, 2008.

*442George S. Leone, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for United States of America.

Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino *&*Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Before FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges and DITTER *, District Judge.

*

 Honorable J. William Ditter, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

Carlos Alberto Ramos Gonzalez appeals the sentence he received after pleading guilty both to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2). Although he received a sentence of incarceration that is at the bottom of the advisory range set by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Ramos Gonzalez asserts that “the sentence imposed in this case exceeded the statutory goals of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.” (Appellant’s Brief at 10.) That is his sole argument on appeal. The District Court had jurisdiction in this criminal matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Ramos Gonzalez was part of a conspiracy responsible for bringing some 300 kilograms of cocaine from Arizona into the greater Philadelphia region. He admits that he and his brother “were in charge of obtaining and transporting the cocaine----” (Appellant’s Brief at 8.) The

District Court determined that the sentencing range called for by the Guidelines was 292 to 365 months of imprisonment, and, after a thorough discussion of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, imposed the lowest sentence in that range: Ramos Gonzalez nevertheless complains that the sentence “is excessive and does not speak to the goals of sentencing. ...” (Appellant’s Brief at 13.)

It is true that a sentencing court “may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable[,]” *Gall v. United States,*—

U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169

L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and, having calculated the range, must go on to discern an appropriate sentence in light of all of the factors set forth in § 3553(a). The District Court here plainly performed the type of analysis called for by the controlling statute and precedents. We see no reason to disagree and, in any event, are bound to recognize that “[t]he sentencing judge has access to, and greater familiarity with, the individual case and the individual defendant before him than ... [does] the appeals court.” *Gall,*128 S.Ct. at 597-98. We therefore reject Ramos Gonzalez’s argument that we substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing judge.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the District Court.
**Exhibit 1.1**

** **

**Articles of Association Marine Harvest ASA**

*Last amended 20 January 2014*

 

§ 1

The name of the company is Marine Harvest ASA. The company is a public limited company.

 

§ 2

The registered office of the company shall be in Bergen municipality.

 

§ 3

The object of the company is production, refinement, sale and distribution of seafood and goods used in seafood production, either directly or through participation in other companies and hereto-related activities.

 

§ 4

The share capital is NOK 3 077 833 192.5divided into 410 377 759 shares at a nominal value of NOK 7.5 each.

 

§ 5

The board of directors shall consist of 6 to 12 members. The board members shall be elected for a period of two years. The chairman and the vice chairman of the board shall be elected by the shareholders’ meeting.

 

§ 6

The company shall have a nominating committee consisting of three members which shall be elected by the shareholders’ meeting. The Chairman of the nomination committee shall be elected by the shareholders’ meeting. The nominating committee shall be elected for a period of two years. The nominating committee shall submit its recommendations to the shareholders’ meeting. The nominating committee’s recommendation shall also include recommendations regarding remuneration to the members of the board. The shareholders’ meeting may resolve directives for the nominating committee’s work.

 

§ 7

The signature of the company is held by the CEO and chairman of the board jointly or by two board members jointly.

 

The board may grant power of procuration.

 

§ 8

The agenda of an ordinary shareholders’ meeting shall include:

 

1.              The board’s annual report.

2.              Approval of financial statement and balance sheet.

3.              Allocation of profit or coverage of deficit in accordance with the declared dividend and balance sheet.

4.              Other matters which according to law or the company’s articles of association shall be decided by the shareholders’ meeting and are mentioned in the summons

 

----

 

§ 9

When documents concerning matters to be discussed at the general meeting are made available to the shareholders on the Company’s website, the requirement in the Public Companies Act that such documents shall be sent to the shareholders shall not apply. This also applies to documents which, according to law, shall be included or enclosed to the notice of the general meeting. A shareholder may nonetheless request hard copies of such documents to be sent to him. The Company cannot claim any form of compensation for sending the documents to the shareholders.

 

§ 10

The provisions of the Companies Act, as they may from time to time be amended, shall apply.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEM 1 OF
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0                  25,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  64,587
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                   1,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   1,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  69,751
<PP&E>                                               0                   8,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                   3,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 100,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                   8,096
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                      21
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  87,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 100,820
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,445                   8,069
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,590                  21,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151                     306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,556)                (11,248)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,556)                (11,248)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                 (2,294)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,556)                (13,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.30)                  (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)                  (0.65)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (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/
Haig S. Bagerdjian
 Haig S.
Bagerdjian
 Chief
Executive Officer
 May 12,
2005