alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 





 


November 12, 2020


 


[______]


VIA E-MAIL


 


Dear [______],


 


This letter agreement between you and Tabula
Rasa HealthCare, Inc. (the “Company”) is intended to document the reduction of your base salary as a response
to the unprecedented economic environment created by the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) (this “Agreement”).
Except as provided below, this Agreement shall supplement and amend the Change-in-Control and Severance Agreement between you and
the Company, dated as of [______] (the “Severance Agreement”). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Severance Agreement.


 


As a result of the challenges related to
COVID-19, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has reduced your Base Salary by [__]% effective October 26,
2020, for the remainder of calendar year 2020. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of calculating any entitlements under
the Severance Agreement, including severance upon termination events or the Target Incentive Bonus, Base Salary shall mean your
Base Salary in effect on the date immediately preceding this reduction. Your Base Salary shall be reinstated automatically, without
any further action by you, effective January 1, 2021. For the avoidance of doubt, other than with respect to these changes,
this Agreement does not modify any other rights under the Severance Agreement or any other agreements between you and the Company.


 


In connection with the reduction of your
Base Salary, the Board awarded you restricted stock pursuant to the Company’s 2016 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, with
a number of shares of restricted stock, rounded up to the nearest whole number, calculated as follows: (i) the reduced Base
Salary amount that would have been paid during the remainder of calendar year 2020, divided by (ii) the Company’s closing
stock price on November 4, 2020. The restricted stock was fully vested and granted to you on November 9, 2020.


 


Please confirm, by your signature below,
that (i) you hereby consent to the terms set forth in this Agreement and (ii) you acknowledge and agree that the terms
set forth herein do not constitute “Good Reason” under the Severance Agreement or any other relevant agreements or
plans. Except as modified by this Agreement, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[Continued on the next page.]


 






    1 


     


    

 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	
	
		On behalf of Tabula Rasa HealthCare, Inc.
	 
	 
	Acknowledged and agreed:
	
	
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Date:	 	 





 






    2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6792

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILBUR EDDIS CLINE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:04-cr-01066-HMH-4; 6:12-cv-00884-HMH; 

6:11-cv-03378-HMH; 6:07-cv-70079-HFF)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilbur Eddis Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilbur Eddis Cline seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his motion for a sentence reduction as 

a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and 

dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000949240
<NAME>                        World Airways
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         25,887
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                   973
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,085
<PP&E>                                         99,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 25,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,905
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,783)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,148
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               309,412
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  292,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,627)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,230
<INCOME-TAX>                                   263
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (515)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.04


</TABLE>
#### George Joseph THOMAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 76-2526

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 1976.

George Joseph Thomas, Jr., pro se.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., James C. Thomason, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and GEW-IN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In his habeas petition1 and briefs in this court appellant contends that (1) after the issuance of a parole violator’s warrant, he was denied a prompt revocation hearing as required by *Morrissey*v. *Brewer,*408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1974), and (2) the failure promptly to dispose of the parole violator’s charge requires that the federal detainer be lifted. Appellant was in custody on state charges at the time of issuance of the federal warrant and detainer. Hence, this case is controlled by *Cook v. United States Attorney General,*488 F.2d. 667 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*419 U.S. 846, 95 S.Ct. 8, 42 L.Ed.2d 75 (1974), in which we held that a revocation hearing *573was not required, at the commencement of the state imprisonment, oh an issued but unexecuted parole violator’s warrant.2 Accordingly, appellant’s contentions are without merit. The district court’s judgment denying the petition is AFFIRMED.

1

. Jurisdiction in the district court was based on 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2

. As appellant notes, some circuits have not followed our position. See *United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis,*520 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1975); *Cooper v. Lockhart,*489 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1973). Other circuits have adopted our rule. See *Gaddy v. Michael,*519 F.2d 669 (4th Cir. 1975); *Small v. Britton,*500 F.2d 299 (10th Cir. 1974). We are, of course, bound by *Cook*unless it is overturned by Supreme Court or *en banc*action.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Vascular and Hematology.                    

*Date:*                         March 19-20, 2012                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ai-Ping Zou, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777,                         *zouai@csr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 28, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-5298 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2048 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Flumetralin Technical—2-chloro-N-[2,6- 

dinitro-4-(tri-fluoromethyl)phenyl]-N-ethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Flumetralin Technical— 

2-chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-4-(tri-fluoromethyl)phenyl]-Nethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUMETRALIN TECHNICAL—2-CHLORO-N-[2,6- 

4 DINITRO-4-(TRI-FLUOROMETHYL)PHENYL]-N5 ETHYL-6-FLUOROBENZENEMETHANAMINE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2048 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Flumetralin Technical—2- 

chloro-N-[2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-N-ethyl6-fluorobenzenemethanamine 

(CAS No. 62924–70–3) (provided for in subheading 

2921.49.45) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF TRANSPRO, INC.

         The following sets forth a list of all the subsidiaries of TransPro,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and the State or other
jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR
           NAME                                      ORGANIZATION
           ----                                      ------------
<S>                                        <C>
Allen Heat Transfer Products, Inc.                     Delaware
AHTP II, Inc.                                          Delaware
GO/DAN Industries (1)                                  New York
GO/DAN de Mexico, SA de C.V. (2)                        Mexico
Radiadores GDI, SA de C.V. (2)                          Mexico
TransPro Indus Ltd.                                    Mauritius
</TABLE>

----------

(1)   GO/DAN Industries, a New York general partnership, is jointly owned by
      Allen Heat Transfer Products Inc. and AHTP II, Inc.

(2)   A wholly-owned subsidiary of GO/DAN Industries.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

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

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                                     |                                                                                  |                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                                     |                                                                                  |
| Date: September                12, 2005   | By:                                                                         | /s/ CARRIE                HARTWICK |
|                                                     |                                                                                       |
|                                                     | Name:                  Carrie HartwickTitle:                  Chief Executive Officer |

|                                                       |                                                                                                                 |                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                                       |                                                                                                                 |
| Date: September                  12, 2005   | By:                                                                                                        | /s/ CARRIE                  HARTWICK |
|                                                       |                                                                                                                      |
|                                                       | Name:                    Carrie HartwickTitle:                    Interim Chief Financial                    Officer |
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 23, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00368

- CV

Laura Pressley, Appellant

v.

Gregorio “Greg” Casar, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the amended fi nal judgment sig n ed by the trial court on July 23, 2015,

which incorporated the terms of its orders granting summary judgment and sanctions

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no rev ersible error

in the trial court’s amended final judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s

amended final judgment

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and in the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1825 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs for 
               Federal employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5739 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3);
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by inserting ``or extended'' after 
                ``approved''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or extension'' after ``of the 
                program'';
            (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c)(1) An agency authorized to conduct a test program under 
subsection (a) shall annually submit a report on the results of the 
program to date to the Administrator.
    ``(2) Not later than 3 months after completion of a test program, 
the agency conducting the program shall submit a final report on the 
results of the program to the Administrator and the appropriate 
committees of Congress.'';
            (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
        ``12''; and
            (5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
    ``(e)(1) The Administrator may not approve any test program for an 
initial period of more than 4 years.
    ``(2)(A) Upon the request of the agency administering a test 
program, the Administrator may extend the program.
    ``(B) An extension under subparagraph (A) may not exceed 4 years.
    ``(C) The Administrator may exercise more than 1 extension under 
subparagraph (A) with respect to any test program.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on December 18, 
2009.

            Passed the Senate November 9, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs for 
               Federal employees, and for other purposes.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1839. KELL v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

The appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. On

June 30, 2014, the trial court denied appellant’s motion seeking pauper status. On

July 21, 2014, the court entered an order denying appellant’s motion for partial

summary judgment. Appellant filed a timely notice of direct appeal from the court’s

denial of pauper status on July 29, 2014 (docketed as A15A1730). On August 19,

2014, however, the appellant filed a separate “Notice of Direct Appeal” from the trial

court’s denial of his motion for partialsummary judgment. But the denial of a motion

for partial summary judgment requires an application for interlocutory review

following the trial court’s certification of the matter for immediate review. See OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). And, even assuming that appellant could have raised the denial of the

motion for partial summary judgment in his pending direct appeal of the denial of

pauper status, he failed to do so. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (d) (where appeal is taken under

any provision of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of OCGA § 5-6-34, all judgments, rulings,

or ordersrendered in the case raised shall be reviewed without regard to appealability

of judgment or ruling standing alone). Because this court is deprived of jurisdiction

in this matter, the appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is hereby GRANTED.

January 14, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/14/2016
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00281-CV

Industrial Models, Inc.

v.

SNF, Inc. d/b/a Brand FX Body 

Company

§

§

§

§

From the 236th District Court

of Tarrant County (236-264887-13)

July 24, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

It is further ordered that appellee SNF, Inc. d/b/a Brand FX Body Company

shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston