alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.20

 

	

    	
January 17,   2013
    


 

Florida East Coast Railway, LLC
  Summary of Employment Terms

 

	
Employee:
    	
 
    	
Francis   J. Chinnici
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
 
    	
Senior   Vice President, Engineering and Purchasing
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Base Salary:
    	
 
    	
$225,000.00   per annum
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual Discretionary  Bonus:
    	
 
    	
Commencing   for the 2013 fiscal year (Paid in the first quarter of 2014), a target bonus   of 40% of base salary, which may go as high as 80%, subject to the discretion   of management of the Company. Any bonus will be paid in cash or partially in   cash and partially in restricted stock. Any receipt of restricted stock will   be subject to award agreements provided by the Company and signed by the   Employee.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Additional Performance  Based Restricted Stock:
    	
 
    	
Additional   restricted stock with a value equivalent to $125,000 (as of the grant date)   annually, contingent upon the Company reaching specific target goals.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual Stock Bonus  Vesting:
    	
 
    	
To   the extent annual discretionary bonuses are paid partially in stock, shares   awarded shall vest over three years (one-third per annum on each successive   anniversary of the date on which the stock portion of bonus is awarded).
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Change of Control:
    	
 
    	
Executive   to receive one year’s base salary if terminated within twelve months of a   change of control.
    


 

Summary of Employment Terms Acknowledgement

 

This will acknowledge that I have been provided the Summary of Employment Terms and that I understand and agree to the terms and conditions expressed herein.  I further understand that this Summary of Employment Terms and my acknowledgement does not guarantee continued employment and that employment with the Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is on an at-will basis.  Further, I acknowledge that nothing herein confers any severance or similar rights.

 

	
/s/ Francis Chinnici
    	
 
    	
1/21/13
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Employee Signature
    	
 
    	
Date
    	
 
    	
 
    


 

Receipt of the attached term sheet does not constitute any guarantee of continued employment.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 14, 2006

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 03-4218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ADDO WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Eastern

District of Wisconsin.

No. 03 CR 29

Charles N. Clevert, Jr., 

Judge.

O R D E R

This court ordered a limited remand so the district court could state on the

record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has limited the guidelines to advisory status. See United

States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005).

The district judge has now replied that he would today impose the same

sentence, knowing of the guidelines’ advisory status. The range under the

guidelines is 84 to 105 months, and Williams’ sentence of 96 months is slightly

above the midpoint. The defendant did not respond to our invitation to file an 

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 03-4218 Page 2

argument concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the

district court’s response. We do not see any reason why Williams’ sentence would

be deemed “unreasonable” in post-Booker practice. The judgment of the district

court therefore is AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 75 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that the United States 

district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction 

over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide that 

the United States district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising under the immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JURISDICTION OVER CASES ARISING UNDER 

4 THE IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 75 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the im2 migration laws 

3 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

4 district court for the District of Columbia shall have exclu5 sive jurisdiction over— 

6 ‘‘(1) any case arising under the immigration 

7 laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the 

8 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 

9 seq.)); or 

10 ‘‘(2) any claim brought by any foreign national 

11 challenging an order of removal from the United 

12 States or any other action authorized under the Im13 migration and Nationality Act.’’. 

14 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at 

15 the beginning of chapter 84 of title 28, United States 

16 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1370. Jurisdiction over cases arising under the immigration laws.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Grant RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-404.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 10, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 12


                               Dean Foods Company
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        13 Weeks Ended
                                        August 24, 1997
                                        ---------------
<S>                                       <C>
Income before taxes                        $35,324
                                           -------
Fixed charges:
        Interest expense                     5,727
        Portion of rentals (33%)             2,401
                                           -------
        Total fixed charges                  8,128
                                           -------
Earnings before taxes and fixed charges    $43,452
                                           =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges             5.3
                                           =======
</TABLE>
1

NO. 03-14-00722-CR; 03-14-00723-CR; 03-14-00724-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

MARK FRUGE § APPELLANT

VS. §

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. D1-DC-13-200256, D1-DC-13-200257, AND D1-DC-13-200259

STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing

the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and

10.5(b), advises the Court as follows:

(a) Following his convictions for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon;

Aggravated Assault Against a Public Servant; and Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly

ACCEPTED

03-14-00724-CR

6845577

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/9/2015 1:01:26 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/9/2015 1:01:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

Weapon, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above causes on November 3,

2014. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief on August 10, 2015.

(c) The State’s brief is currently due on September 9, 2015.

(c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by

30 days.

(d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the

State’s brief is: none.

(e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need

for an extension of the deadline:

1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case

has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not had

sufficient time to prepare an adequate response to this brief.

2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the Court

has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above cause.
3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline for

filing the State’s brief be extended to October 9, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY LEHMBERG

District Attorney

Travis County, Texas

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 24043661

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

(512) 854-9400

Fax No. 854-4810

Matthew.Foye@traviscountytx.gov

AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov
4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based

upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains

244 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i)

exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is

printed in a conventional, 14-point typeface.

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the 9th day of September, 2015, a true and correct

copy of this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or

electronically through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney,

Ariel Payan, Attorney at Law, 1012 Rio Grande, Austin, Texas 78701,

arielpayan@hotmail.com .

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACKSON PRYOR GROUP, a California 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MANUEL LIMA, as Trustees of the Trust 

established under Declaration dated January 

13, 1994; SUSANNE LIMA, as Trustees of 

the Trust established under Declaration dated 

January 13, 1994, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-16899 

D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00111-SVK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2023**

San Jose, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and PAEZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jackson Pryor Group brings a narrow appeal, challenging the dismissal of its 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Complaint only to the extent the dismissal was on the merits rather than for lack of 

jurisdiction. Because there is no error in the district court’s dismissal order, we 

affirm. 

As Jackson Pryor Group itself argues, the district court was “crystal clear” 

that it was declining to exercise jurisdiction. In dismissing under American

International Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 843 

F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1988), the district court appropriately stated that it was 

applying “a narrow exception to the [c]ourt’s duty to exercise its jurisdiction.” 

Jackson Pryor argues that the district court should have clarified that this 

was not a decision on the merits that would bind a state court. But no further 

clarification from the district court was needed. See Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 

49 F.4th 1308, 1314 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that “a federal court’s pre-merits 

determination to withhold relief is binding on other federal courts, but not on 

courts outside the federal system that might properly exercise their own 

jurisdiction over the claim”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that a dismissal 

“for lack of jurisdiction” generally does not “operate[] as an adjudication on the 

merits”). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of THQ Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Brian J. Farrell,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Brian J. Farrell    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Brian J. Farrell        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | March 31, 2003          |

 

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                        EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997
                           AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                                                  BALANCE SHEET.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         865829
<NAME>                        FFCA/PIP III INVESTOR SERVICES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                               1
<CURRENCY>                                     U. S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                            100
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          100
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      200
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-75780)  pertaining to the registration of 6,222,487 shares of common
stock of Adept Technology,  Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-71374,  333-66993, 333-92525, 333-39065, 333-50292 and 333-50296) pertaining
to the 2001 Stock Plan, 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Stock Plan, 1995
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1995 Director Option Plan of Adept  Technology,
Inc.  of our  report  dated July 29,  2002,  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  and schedule of Adept  Technology,  Inc.  included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2002.


                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Jose, California
September 23, 2002
#### Jose Garcia LOTARIO, Appellant, v. Julia Elizabeth KITE, Appellee.

No. N-337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, a national banking corporation, Appellant, v. DREW NATIONAL LEASING CORPORATION and 1920, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 69-808.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Frederick CUNDIFF, Appellee.

No. 2565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James M. Russ, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Brinegar v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. *1879;*Carroll v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543; Carter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 324; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 21; F.S.1967, Section 933.19, F.S.A.

*692WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur.

CROSS, C. J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I must respectfully dissent.

The State of Florida appeals from an order granting the motion of defendant, Frederick Cundiff, to suppress evidence seized as the result of a warrantless search of an automobile.

I am convinced the search by the officers was made upon probable cause and in the belief that because of the possible mobility of the automobile at the time of the search it would have been impracticable to obtain a search warrant. The record reflects that the search was reasonable and the fruits thereof were legally seized. Harris v. United States, 1947, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399; Zap v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 624, 66 S.Ct. 1277, 90 L.Ed. 1477; Steele v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757.

I would reverse, vacate and set aside the order suppressing the evidence.
Exhibit 10.23


                AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into this 28 day of
May, 2003 by and between Del Global Technologies Corp., a corporation duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of New York (the "Corporation") and
Samuel E. Park ("Executive").

WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive entered into an Executive Employment
Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2001 (the "Original Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive desire to amend the Original Agreement as
provided herein.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and
other consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree to the following amendments to the Original
Agreement:

1.     Section 8 shall be amended by adding a new Section 8.3 as follows:
"Section 8.3   Legal Fees.

8.3 The Corporation agrees to pay as incurred, to fullest extent allowed by law,
all legal fees and expenses which may be reasonably incurred by Executive as a
result of any contest by the Corporation, the Executive or others of the
validity or enforceability of, or liability under, any of the terms of this
Agreement, plus in each case, interest on any delayed payment at the applicable
federal rate under the Code."

3.       All other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

4.       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to
Executive Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.


DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.


By: /s/  Thomas V. Gilboy
        ----------------

Name: Thomas V. Gilboy

Title: Chief Financial Officer

EXECUTIVE

/s/ Samuel E. Park
     --------------
President and CEO
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08353**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 08353\08353_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 08353\08353_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 08353\08353_Followup Questions.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_Followup Response1_JSM.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_Followup Response2_JSM.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_Followup Response2_Part C_JSM.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up



### 08353\08353_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 08353\08353_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08353\08353_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08353\08353_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08353\08353_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08353\08353_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 08353\08353_telecon1.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_telecon2.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_telecon3.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_telecon4.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_telecon5.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up 

### x 08353\08353_telecon6.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up



### 08353\Certification Statement Plant ID 08353.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_Antidegradation report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_Engineering Study 1Feb10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_FGD Final Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Terrance Edward SCOTT, Relator, v. Honorable Ellen J. MORPHONIOS, Judge of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
ACCEPTED 07-15-00070 SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS 6/15/2015 11:09:36 AM Vivian Long, Clerk
#### Succession of Corinne Strauss KAUFMAN.

No. 7885.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1969.

Writs Refused Feb. 6, 1970.

Fernando J. Freyre, of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Byron R. Kantrow, Jr., of Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Walter, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, REID and BLANCHE, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

For the reasons this day handed down in In Succession of Bellinger, No. 7764 on the docket of this Court and reported in 229 So.2d 749, the judgment rendered in the Lower Court is reversed and the case is remanded to the said Court for the proper calculation of the taxes due.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.