alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{00071220}

NO. 04-15-00021-CV 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ______________ 

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

APPELLANT

VERSUS

MICHAEL AND THERESA HAYES

APPELLEES

______________ 

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER TEN, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

NO. 2014CV00284 

 

Appellees’ Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument 

 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 10.5(c), Appellees Michael and 

Theresa Hayes file this Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument. 

1. On October 26th, this Court scheduled oral argument for December 16, 

2015. This date presents a conflict for Appellees’ counsel because David Earl is 

getting married on December 12, 2015, and will be on his honeymoon out of the 

country thereafter through December 23, 2015. Leslie Hyman will be travelling to 

visit family out of state from December 25 through January 5, 2016. These trips 

were scheduled before this Court scheduled oral argument. 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00021-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

11/10/2015 9:31:50 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/10/2015 9:31:50 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
{00071220} – 2 – 

2. Appellant does not oppose postponing oral argument. 

3. In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(c), Appellees 

move to postpone oral argument and reschedule it for any day after January 5, 

2016. 

WHEREFORE Appellees pray that this Motion be granted such that oral 

argument, currently set for December 16, 2015, be postponed to any day after 

January 5, 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

PULMAN, CAPPUCCIO, 

 PULLEN, BENSON & JONES, LP

 2161 NW Military Highway, Suite 400 

 San Antonio, Texas 78213 

 www.pulmanlaw.com 

(210) 222-9494 Telephone 

 (210) 892-1610 Facsimile 

By: /s/ Leslie Sara Hyman 

 Elliott S. Cappuccio 

 State Bar No. 24008419 

 ecappuccio@pulmanlaw.com 

 Leslie Sara Hyman 

 State Bar No. 00798274 

 lhyman@pulmanlaw.com 

 Brennan R. Kucera 

 State Bar No. 24076491 

 bkucera@pulmanlaw.com 

 
{00071220} – 3 – 

EARL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

David L. Earl 

State Bar No. 06343030 

Megan J. Clay 

State Bar No. 24077729 

601 NW Loop 410, Suite 390 

San Antonio, Texas 78216 

(210) 222-1500 Telephone 

(210) 222-9100 Facsimile 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

MICHAEL AND THERESA HAYES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 10th day of November, 2015, the foregoing Appellees’ 

Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument has been transmitted by electronic 

service in accordance with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure addressed as follows: 

Via Email: alopezoffice@gmail.com 

Albert López

Law Offices of Albert López 

14310 Northbrook Drive, Suite 200 

San Antonio, Texas 78232 

 /s/ Leslie Sara Hyman Leslie Sara Hyman
Second Amendment to the KCHS Holdings, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.11 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 KCHS HOLDINGS, INC. 2006 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 THIS SECOND
AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of this 27th day of June, 2007, to the KCHS Holdings, Inc. 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of KCHS Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) in its sole discretion may amend the Plan or any portion of the Plan at any time and in such respects as it
shall deem advisable; provided, however, that, to the extent required by applicable law, regulation or stock exchange rule, stockholder approval shall be required for any amendment to the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) desires to amend the Plan in order to increase the authorized number of shares available
for issuance under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with the federal income tax rules governing incentive stock options, stockholders of the Company
are required to approve a Plan amendment that increases the maximum aggregate number of shares to be issued under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has
determined that it is within its authority under the Plan to amend the Plan as set forth herein, that such amendment is desired and appropriate at this time and that the effectiveness of such amendment shall be subject to stockholder approval; and

 WHEREAS, the undersigned has been authorized by the Board to execute this Amendment on the Board’s behalf. 
 AMENDMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows: 
  

	1.	Section 4.1 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following: 

 Subject to adjustment from time to time as provided in Section 11.1, a maximum of 10,000,000 shares of Common Stock shall be available for issuance under the Plan. Shares of Common Stock issued under the Plan
shall be drawn from authorized and unissued shares of Common Stock or shares of Common Stock now held or subsequently acquired by the Company as treasury shares. 
  

	2.	Any inconsistent provisions of the Plan shall be read consistent with this Amendment. 

  

	3.	Except as amended above, each and every other provision of the Plan, as effective immediately prior to this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect without change or
modification. 

  

	4.	The Effective Date of this Amendment shall be June 27, 2007. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being authorized by the Board to execute this Amendment in evidence
of the adoption of this Amendment by the Board, has executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	KCHS HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert Cucuel
		 	Robert Cucuel
		 	Chief Executive Officer and President


  

 2
73 A.3d 577

#### David M. LANDAY and Patberg Carmody & Ging, Respondents v. RITE AID, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 27, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

> (1) Does the Medical Records Act apply to a pharmacy’s provision of copies of records?

> (2) Under the Medical Récords Act, may a pharmacy charge a flat fee for the reproduction of pharmacy records if it gives the customer an invoice setting forth the fee and the customer reviews and pays the invoice without objection before receiving the pharmacy records?
#### Lewis DUCKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-6240.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 29, 2008.

Lewis Duckett, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lewis Duckett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Duckett that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Duckett failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Duckett has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections af*232ter receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5657
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (509)
<INVENTORY>                                        111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6292
<PP&E>                                             921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (670)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                        5606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12388
<SALES>                                          10963
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 18678
<CGS>                                           (2942)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (550)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (463)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (19)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          18,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                       552
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,708
<PP&E>                                          22,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,935
<SALES>                                        125,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,269
<CGS>                                           47,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,080
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.17



 





Exhibit 10.17




AGREEMENT




     AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated as of June 15, 2007, by and between Theodore S.
Green (“Green”) and Malcolm Bird (“Bird”).



     WHEREAS, Green and Bird are founders of TM Entertainment and Media, Inc. (the “Corporation”);



     WHEREAS, in connection with the initial public offering of securities of the Corporation, the
Corporation will sell to Green and Bird and others an aggregate of 2,100,000 warrants to purchase
common stock of the Corporation (the “Warrants”); and



     WHEREAS, Green is only willing to purchase the Warrants upon the commitment of Bird as
provided herein.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions of this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:



     1. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, Green hereby agrees to purchase 1,800,000
Warrants and Bird agrees to purchase 250,000 Warrants.



     2. Pursuant to Article “SEVENTH”, subsection (C) of the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation (the “Charter”), in the event that the Corporation does
not consummate a Business Combination by the Termination Date (each as defined in the Charter) the
officers of the Corporation are required to dissolve and liquidate the Corporation as soon as
reasonably practicable. In the event that the officers of the Corporation do take such action to
dissolve and liquidate the Corporation, Bird hereby agrees that he shall pay to Green the sum of
$300,000 (the “Sum”), payable in 12 equal quarterly installments of $25,000, beginning on
the earlier of (i) twenty-four months from the effective date of the Corporation’s registration
statement in connection with its initial public offering or (ii) the earlier dissolution or
liquidation of the Corporation, and continuing thereafter every three months until paid in full.
If Bird does not pay each such quarterly installment within sixty (60) days of the corresponding
due date, Bird agrees that the outstanding amount of the Sum shall bear interest at an annual rate
equal to the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate then in effect.



[Signature Page to Follow]




 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first set
forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
 	 
	 	MALCOLM BIRD 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
 	 
	 	THEODORE S. GREEN 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000825811
<NAME> ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           (657)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                       445
<INVENTORY>                                      8,146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,059
<PP&E>                                          36,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,861
<BONDS>                                         40,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,463)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,184
<SALES>                                         27,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,953
<CGS>                                           17,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (456)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.21)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION I, Charles F. Catlett, III, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Central Virginia Bankshares, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (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) 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  (c) 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  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (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.  Date:  April 17, 2007 /s/ Charles F. Catlett, III Charles F. Catlett, III, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Office
#### William DEATON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer John DOE, a/k/a Officer Thomas; LT John Doe, a/k/a Lt Clauson; LT John Doe, a/k/a Lt Vetter; SGT John Doe; Jane Doe, Nurse; Jane Doe, Nurse; Sgt Jane Doe; Sgt Jane Doe; Officer John Doe; Officer John Doe; Officer John Doe; John Doe, Nurse; Lexington County Detention Center; LCDC Medical Provider; John Doe, Maintenance Supervisor, sued in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-7413.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 29, 2016.

William Deaton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*181Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Deaton appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Deaton v. Officer John Doe,*No. 2:15-cv-00276-GRA-MGB (D.S.C. June 24 & Aug. 4, 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

328 

CA 13-01390 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

SHARELLE REYNOLDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD KELLY, BETTE KELLY AND MARK KELLY, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

ATHARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, UTICA (MO ATHARI OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

BOEGGEMAN, GEORGE & CORDE, P.C., ALBANY (PAUL A. HURLEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David

A. Murad, J.), entered November 29, 2012 in a personal injury action. 

The order, among other things, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a

protective order disqualifying the designated defense examiner.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries she allegedly sustained as the result of her exposure to lead

paint as a child while residing in an apartment owned by defendants. 

Plaintiff contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying her

cross motion for a protective order seeking disqualification of the

designated defense examiner, a neuropsychologist, or, in the

alternative, directing that the examination be recorded. While this

appeal was pending, the challenged examination was conducted and the

examiner has since issued a report. We conclude that plaintiff’s

appeal is moot as a result of those intervening circumstances, and

this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine

(see Cuevas v 1738 Assoc., L.L.C., 111 AD3d 416, 416; see also Hughes

v Farrey, 39 AD3d 431, 431; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v

Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). We therefore dismiss the appeal.

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court