alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jack BARRECA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH BEACH BEVERAGE CO., INC., Lotte USA, and 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants.

Nos. 05-1027, 05-1045, 05-1067.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
(Reap. Dec. 11030)

#### T.A.P. Equipment Co., DBA Thrifty Equipment *C*o. James G. Wiley et al. v. United States

Entry No. 1052, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1965)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Nichols, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, are before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise entered or withdrawn from Customs warehouse for consumption before the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and shown on the invoices as having been shipped by Readheads (Salisbury) Ltd.

> 2. That the said merchandise consists of D6, D7 or D8 Track Chain exported from England and the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Thrifty Equipment Co., T. D. Downing Co. v. United States,*Reap. Dec. 10674, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of England, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were as follows:

> 39 link D-6 track chain £64.0.0

> 37 link D-7 track chain £125.0.0

> 39 link D-8 track chain £160.0.0

> *5294. That at the time of exportation to the United States, such merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for exportation to the United States and export value, or such value, as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, of similar merchandise is no higher than the values set forth in paragraph 3, above.

> 5. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, on the record incorporated herein, and on the authority of the decision cited, I find and hold that foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, and that such values are as follows:

> 39 link D-6 track chain £64.0.0

> 37 link D-7 track chain £126.0.0

> 39 link D-8 track chain £160.0.0

subject to a pro rata allowance or addition for each link that fell short of or exceeded the above linkage as follows:

> D-6 £3.0.0

> D-7 £4.10.0

> D-8 £6.10.0

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO

CONFIRM NEW ADDRESS

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOSEPH ELIJAH AGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANE STEVENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1506-MJP-MAT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO

CONFIRM NEW ADDRESS

On January 9, 2006, and January 30, 2006, the Post Office returned to the court, as

undeliverable, two Orders that had been sent to plaintiff at the King County Jail. (Doc. #15, #20).

Apparently, plaintiff had been transferred to the Washington State Penitentiary and failed to inform

the court of his current mailing address, as required by Local Rule CR 41(b)(2). The court learned

of plaintiff’s new address only by noticing that defendants included the new address in a certificate

of service attached to their recent filings. (Doc. #23). In light of the above, the court does hereby

find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff is advised that failure to inform the court of his current address could result

in dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Local Rule CR 41(b)(2). Plaintiff is ORDERED

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 24 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO

CONFIRM NEW ADDRESS

PAGE -2

to confirm in writing within 15 days of this Order that his new address is as follows:

Joseph Agee

DOC #943887 

Washington State Penitentiary

P.O. Box 520

Walla Walla, WA 99362

Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this

action. 

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, and

to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. The Clerk shall also re-send plaintiff a copy of the Order

regarding pretrial preparations. (Doc. #19).

DATED this 10th day of February , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 24 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 63359.

protest 58/8015 (San Francisco).

#### Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that paragraph 1539, *supra,*is inapplicable, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Wdesk | Exhibit








Exhibit 10(a)(4)
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and effective as of April 3, 2018, by and between James R. Seitz (hereinafter “Executive”), and 1st Source Corporation, an Indiana corporation (hereinafter “Employer”).
WHEREAS, Executive is currently employed as the President of Employer and President of Employer’s subsidiary, 1st Source Bank (“Bank”), pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of May 23, 2017 (“Employment Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer have agreed to further amend the Employment Agreement as provided below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Employment Agreement and this Amendment, Executive and Employer hereby agree that Section 6(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6(b).  If such termination occurs within one (1) year after a Change in Control of Employer or Bank, then as severance pay and in lieu of any further compensation for periods subsequent to the effective date of such termination, Executive shall receive, within thirty (30) days following such termination, an amount in cash equal to 2.99 times his “annualized includable compensation for the base period” (as defined in Section 280G(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)), provided that, for purposes of such calculation, Executive’s average annual compensation shall be determined by excluding all compensation other than Executive’s annual base pay and any bonuses awarded under the Company’s bonus plans, and specifically excluding any accelerated vesting or conversion of stock awards or exercise of stock options regardless of their inclusion in the Executive’s reportable gross income.”      
As hereby modified, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year first written above.
1st Source Corporation
	
					
	By:
	/s/ Christopher J. Murphy III
	 
	 
	/s/ James R. Seitz

	 
	Christopher J. Murphy III
	 
	 
	James R. Seitz

	 
	Chairman of the Board and 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Chief Executive Officer
#### Myrtle MOORE and Dicie Charles, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5065.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2001.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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.


                                        /S/ Richard W. Bauer
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Richard W. Bauer
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
                                        November 14, 2002
**Exhibit 10.26**

**ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT**

THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (the“Agreement”) is entered into as of December 31, 2008 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignor”), and Local Insight MediaHoldings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignee”). Assignor and Assignee are each individually referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.” 

**RECITALS**

WHEREAS, Assignor desiresto assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, all Assignor’s rights and obligations under that certain Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated as of January 2, 2007, by and between Assignor, asassignee of Local Insight Media LLC, and Marilyn B. Neal; 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which ishereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 

 

1.1 Assignor herebyassigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee, and Assignee hereby assumes, all Assignor’s right, title, interest, powers, privileges, remedies, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Employment Agreement. As of the Effective Date,Assignee shall become entitled to all such right, title, interest, powers, privileges and remedies of Assignor and subject to all such duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor, in each case as if Assignee were the original party to theEmployment Agreement. 

1.2 As of the Effective Date, the term “Company,” as used in the Employment Agreement, shall refer toAssignee, and Assignee will be bound by and perform Assignor’s obligations under the Employment Agreement. 

 

2.1 This Agreement shall begoverned by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to conflicts of law provisions. 

2.2. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed by any oral communicationsof any kind or character, or by any written communication, unless signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the Parties. 

[Signature Page Follows] 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the datefirst written above. 

 
**LOCAL INSIGHT REGATTA HOLDINGS, INC.**By: /s/ JOHN S. FISCHERName: John S. FischerTitle: General Counsel and Secretary**LOCAL INSIGHT MEDIA, L.P.**By: /s/ JOHN S. FISCHERName: John S. FischerTitle: General Counsel and Secretary
 

2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 5, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136298 & (99)(101 )(102)(103)(104)(105) Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. GARY HENRY and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY Stephen J. Markman, SITUATED, J ustices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136298 COA: 266433 Saginaw CC: 03-047775-NZ DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for le ave to file briefs amicus curiae and for miscellaneous relief are GRANTED. The applic ation for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the “rigorous analysis” requirement for class certification that is applie d in the federal courts also applies to state class actions, see Gen Tel Co of the Southwest v Falcon, 457 US 147, 161; 102 S Ct 2364; 72 L Ed 2d 740 (1982); (2) if so, whether the Sagi naw Circuit Court engaged in the required rigorous analysis to determine if cla ss certification was appropriate; (3) whether the plaintiffs met all of the requisites fo r class certification established in MCR 3.501(A)(1), including the requirement that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predomin ate over questions affecting only individual members; and (4) whether the plaintiffs established that th ey suffered injury on a classwide basis in order to justify class certification.

The Litigation Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Mi chigan Association
for Justice are invited to file briefs amicus cu riae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move th e Court for permission
to file briefs amicus curiae.

t1029 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 5, 2008

Clerk
No. 60556.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 263260-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7066

In Re: ANGELO GALLOWAY,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus. 

(2:16-cv-00348-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Galloway petitions for writs of mandamus seeking 

orders directing the district court to hold a bond hearing, to 

grant him reasonable bail, and to rule on his complaint under 

Fed. R. App. P. 46. We conclude that Galloway is not entitled 

to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988).

Galloway’s petitions rely on factual and legal premises 

that have been rejected on numerous occasions in both the 

district court and this court. Galloway may not use mandamus to 

relitigate these challenges to his criminal conviction and 

sentence or as a substitute for appeal. See In re Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, 

Galloway fails to demonstrate a clear right to the relief he 

seeks.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petitions for writs of mandamus. We deny 

as moot Galloway’s motion to expedite decision. We dispense 
3

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.

PETITIONS DENIED
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 14 - 0577 Directorate ID : 20 13 - SW - 042 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB - B K 117 C - 2 helicopters. Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 385 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions are intended to prevent loss of concerned control axis and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : In specting for movement of the washers require s 1.5 work hours for a labor cost of $128 per helicopter and $49,280 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the screws and related work require s an additional 0.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $43. Screws cost $4 each while washers cost $10 each. We estimate the cost at $79 per repair. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Matt Wilbanks
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                        Computation of Earnings per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three months ended
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                      January 28,    February 2,
                                                         1996           1997
                                                     ------------   ------------
<S>                                                  <C>            <C>         
Primary Earnings per Common and
   Common Equivalent Share:

   Average Market Price                              $      15.85   $      16.77

   Weighted average common shares
     outstanding during period                          7,655,581      7,676,610

   Common Stock Equivalents -
     Common Stock Options                                  85,657         76,442
                                                     ------------   ------------

   Weighted average common and
     common equivalent shares                           7,741,238      7,753,052
                                                     ============   ============

   Net earnings for period - unaudited               $  1,359,936   $  1,914,129
                                                     ============   ============

   Primary earnings per share                        $        .18   $        .25
                                                     ============   ============


Fully Diluted Earnings per Common and
   Common Equivalent Share:

   Greater of average market price or
     closing market price                            $      15.85   $      19.50

   Weighted average common shares
     outstanding during period (from above)             7,655,581      7,676,610

   Common Stock Equivalents - Common 
     Stock Options                                         85,657         92,125
                                                     ------------   ------------

   Fully diluted weighted average
     common and common equivalent shares                7,741,238      7,768,735
                                                     ============   ============

   Net earnings for the period - unaudited           $  1,359,936   $  1,914,129
                                                     ============   ============

   Fully diluted earnings per share                  $        .18   $        .25
                                                     ============   ============
</TABLE>




                                      -18-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

         <ARTICLE>                 5
                
         <S>                       <C>
         <PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
         <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-1999
         <PERIOD-END>                       AUG-31-1998
         <CASH>                                3,455,426
         <SECURITIES>                                  0
         <RECEIVABLES>                       266,788,166
         <ALLOWANCES>                          7,571,000
         <INVENTORY>                             848,999
         <CURRENT-ASSETS>                    247,954,009
         <PP&E>                                2,859,082
         <DEPRECIATION>                        1,222,456
         <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      267,060,324
         <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               211,684,611
         <BONDS>                                       0
         <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
         <PREFERRED>                                   0
         <COMMON>                             22,571,361
         <OTHER-SE>                           26,154,397
         <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      267,060,324
         <SALES>                              62,752,069
         <TOTAL-REVENUES>                     69,397,418
         <CGS>                                59,175,585
         <TOTAL-COSTS>                         59,175,585
         <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,076,067
         <LOSS-PROVISION>                      1,245,358
         <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    3,372,244
         <INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,529,083
         <INCOME-TAX>                          1,253,000
         <INCOME-CONTINUING>                   2,276,083
         <DISCONTINUED>                                0
         <EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
         <CHANGES>                                     0
         <NET-INCOME>                          2,276,083
         <EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.44
         <EPS-DILUTED>                              0.42
                 
         
</TABLE>