alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harrington vs. The State.

*June 2*

June *23, 1880.*

Criminad Law and Practice: Justices’ Courts. *Cause of adjournment must appear from record.*

Where the record of a conviction in justice’s court on a criminal coinplaint shows that the trial was adjourned to a future day, and fails to show that such adjournment was for cause, this is fatal to the jurisdiction of the justice, and of the circuit court on appeal. *Kepler v. The State,*43 Wis., 479.

*69ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Walworth*County.

The plaintiff in error was arrested and brought before a police justice by virtue of a warrant issued on a complaint charging him with a misdemeanor. He refused to plead, and the justice entered for him a plea of not guilty. The case was then adjourned to a future day, on motion of the district attorney. The justice failed to enter in his docket the place to which it was adjourned, and the record does not show that the adjournment was for cause. The accused was held to hail for his appearance on the day to which the case was continued. ITe appeared on that day, and objected to further proceedings being taken in the case. The objection was disregarded, and he was tried, convicted, and adjudged to pay a fine and costs. He thereupon appealed to the circuit court, and moved that court to dismiss the proceedings upon the ground (among others) that the justice lost jurisdiction of the case by adjourning it without entering the place to which it was adjourned, or that it was adjourned for cause. The court denied the motion, and he was again tried, convicted, and adjudged to pay a fine and costs.

'The cause was submitted for the plaintiff in error on the brief of *B. B. <& 8. W. Mensie.*

*The Attorney*General, for the state.

Lyon, J.

Passing all other objections made to the validity of the judgment, there is one which is fatal. The trial was adjourned by the justice on motion of the district attorney, and the record of conviction does not show that such adjournment was for cause, much less the cause itself.- The case is, in principle, precisely like that of *Hepler v. The State,*43 Wis., 479, and is ruled by it. The justice lost jurisdiction of the case by the irregular and unauthorized adjournment, and the appeal conferred no jurisdiction upon the circuit court to try and punish the accused.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the plaintiff in error discharged.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00053-CV

DAVID B. CANTU,

Appellant

v.

ENRIQUE M. CARRIZALES 

AND WILIBARDO GARCIA,

Appellees

From the 414th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-4404-5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court’s May 23, 2013 order provided:

No later than 14 days after the expiration of the six-month’s stay, 

Appellant is directed to file a status report on the stay in the liquidation 

proceeding. The status report, which may be by letter, should include 

information pertaining to whether the stay has been extended by further 

order of the 419th District Court in the liquidation proceeding.

In a letter dated November 25, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified the parties as 

follows:
Cantu v. Carrizales Page 2

In accordance with the Court’s May 23, 2013 order, Appellant’s 

status report on the stay in the liquidation proceeding was due on October 

21, 2013. 

Unless the status report is filed within 14 days of the date of this 

letter, this matter will be referred to the Court for further action. 

No status report was filed by Appellant. Therefore, in a letter dated January 8, 

2014, the Clerk of the Court directed Appellant to file the status report within 14 days

and that if Appellant failed to timely file the status report, the appeal would be 

dismissed without further notification. 

Appellant has failed to respond to the Clerk’s January 8, 2014 letter and has 

failed to file the status report. This appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b, c).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed February 6, 2014

[CV06]
<PAGE>   1


                                                             EXHIBIT 10.54

                           ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount:  $100,000 Detroit, Michigan

Dated:  March 27, 1997

     UNDER date of August 21, 1996, the undersigned ("Borrower") made and
delivered to John R. Morris ("Lender") a Secured Promissory Note in the
principal amount of $100,000 (the "Note").

     At this time, Borrower has requested that Lender adjust the rate at which
interest accrues on the unpaid principal balance under the Note.

     Accordingly, Lender and Borrower hereby agree to amend the Note in the
following particular:

     1. Rate at which interest accrues on the unpaid principal balance under
the Note is hereby modified from 14% to 10% per annum.

     2. This Allonge is but an amendment to the Note by way of modification and
does not constitute payment, satisfaction or discharge of the Note or any
obligation thereunder.  The Note, the Loan Commitment Letter and the Security
Agreement and all documents delivered by Borrower to secure its obligations
under the Note and any and all other documents executed by Borrower in
connection with the delivery of the Note are hereby ratified and confirmed as
being in full force and effect, as modified hereby.  In addition, Borrower
represents and warrants that it has no defense to payment or claims of  offset
under the Note.

THIS ALLONGE HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND DELIVERED ON MARCH 27, 1997.


BORROWER:

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.,
a Michigan corporation

By: /s/ William R. Hurd
   --------------------------------
William R. Hurd
Its:  President and Chief Operating Officer

ACCEPTANCE:




     THE UNDERSIGNED hereby accepts the foregoing Allonge Promissory Note in
accordance with its terms.


/s/ John R. Morris
--------------------------------
John R. Morris
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before MONAHAN , CRISFIELD, and LAWRENCE Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Dachner ST. VILUS Corporal ( E

- 4 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 202000118

Decided: 21 September 2020
Appeal from the Uni ted States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Ray B. Slabbe korn
Sentence adjudged 2 1 February 20 20 by a general court

- martial convened at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : co nfi nement for 18 months, reduction to E

- 1 , and a dishonorable discharge

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel M ichael D. Berry
, USMC R
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding prece dent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.United States v. St. Vilus , NMCCA No. 202000118 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error mat erially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Cler k of Court
Exhibit
10.4 (EMULEX LOGO)
    
    CHANGE IN CONTROL RETENTION PLAN
 Introduction Plan ELX Company Affiliates
 Eligibility for Benefits
 General Rules
 Eligible Employees Termination Event KERA
  provided
 Ineligible Terminations
   Definitions
  Beneficial Owner Beneficially Owned
 Board
 Cause
 Change in Control
  provided that
   1




---



##### 



Change in Control Period
 Code
 Company
 Disability
 Emulex Option
 Exchange Act
 Good Reason
 IRS
 Pay
 Severance Period
 Stock Award
 Termination Date
 Amount of Benefit
  Other Benefits
   2




---



##### 



Emulex Options and Stock Awards
 Vesting Acceleration
 Exercise Extension
 Time of Payment and form of benefit, no mitigation.
   Eligible Employee Covenants
 Scope of Covenants Covenants
 Compliance Determinations
 No Right to Severance Payment; Benefit Termination
 Continuation of Employment Benefits
  Health Plan Benefits Continuation
 Continued Coverage COBRA
 Continued Coverage
Premiums
   3




---



##### 



Other Employee Benefits
 Outplacement Services
 Excise Taxes
 After Tax Amount Payments Excise Tax Accountants
 IRS Determinations Repayment Amount
 Company Payment
 Right to Interpret Plan; amend and terminate; other arrangements; binding nature of
Plan
 Exclusive Discretion Plan Administrator
 Term Of Plan; Amendment Or Termination; Binding Nature Of Plan
  provided however provided, further
   4




---



##### 



Binding Effect On Successor To Company
 No Implied Employment Contract
  Legal Construction
 Claims, Inquiries, and Appeals
 Applications For Benefits And Inquiries
 
 Denial Of Claims
 Request For A Review
 
  Decision On Review
 Rules And Procedures
 Exhaustion Of Remedies
   5




---



##### 



Effect of Section 409A of the Code
 Execution
  EMULEX CORPORATIONBy: 
Name:
    
    James
McCluneyTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
   6




---



##### 



(EMULEX LOGO)
    
    GENERAL WAIVER AND RELEASE FORM
     I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMS.
 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST
IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
 
 Employee Signature (to be signed only after a Termination Event):Employee Name:Date Signed:
# CE2004084EN.01035101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/351 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/351

---

(2004/C 84 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0282/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Identification of the outermost regions on official Community maps

Subject:

Article 299(2) of the Treaty identifies the outermost regions, which, naturally, are not to be confused with the overseas countries and territories referred to in Article 299(3) and listed in Annex II, or with other regions or countries having a different status and referred to elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the Official Publications Service of the European Communities, was still, in 2003 and under the Commission's copyright, perpetuating the error of referring to the outermost regions as ‘non-continental and overseas territories of the Member States’.

In the case of the Autonomous Region of the Azores (mentioned only summarily as ‘the Azores’), one of the outermost regions with a geographical location outside Europe, not one of the islands is actually named, and the only town mentioned is Ponta Delgada: the historic towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta are passed over.

Can the Commission explain why it has not identified these regions correctly, i.e. as outermost regions, and has used a term which could create confusion with the overseas territories listed in Annex II?

Has the Commission any objection to the future inclusion in the maps concerned of the designation ‘Autonomous Region of the Azores’ and the inclusion of the towns of Angra do Heroísmo and Horta?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to maps which the Commission publishes with the aim of informing the general public about Europe. They are not official maps and do not serve any legal or administrative purpose. In order to ensure that a map is readable, some editorial standards are needed concerning what names to use. Among the standards followed, one is that the maps made freely available to the public use the short form of names of countries and regions and that only one city per region is mentioned. Islands are named, but not on smaller scale maps. Similarly, the expression ‘outermost regions’ referred to by Article 299 of the EC Treaty has not been used for strictly editorial reasons, as this term is not widely known and understood among the general public of all the Member States.

---
OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

19) ll-C-16 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:42 PM 

- - -

Sheet 19 of 79 

p.1 
P.2 

JUL 2 I 1987 

Honorable William Proxmire, Chairman 

Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies 

530 Senate Dirksen 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Proxmire: 

In the Conference Committee Report for the 1987 fiscal year 

budget, the conferees requested that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) provide Congress with certain 

background information regarding the regulation of refueling 

emissions from motor vehicles, as detailed in the House 

Appropriations Committee Report. The House Appropriations 

Committee expressed concern that the Agency may not have 

developed sufficient data with which to properly assess the 

desirability of a nationwide refueling control program. As a 

consequence, EPA was directed to: 1) review the need for and 

effectiveness of a nationwide refueling control program, 2) 

evaluate the costs and benefits of alternatives to assure a 

cost-effective strategy, 3) assure that requirements of the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 or potential defect 

problems related to on -.card controls ace adequately resolved, 

and 4) address the effects of fuel volatility on refueling 

controls. In addition, the House Appropriations Committee 

asked that information regarding the above issues and all of 

the rulemaking support materials be provided to Congress 

concurrently with EPA's submission of the proposal for Federal 

Register publication. 

I am pleased to provide our proposal to control refueling 

emissions and the regulatory support materials to Congress, as 

requested (see enclosures). I would like to assure the members 

of Congress that the proposed action is the culmination of an 

intensive analysis to . : ntify the most appropriate form for 
P.3 

controlling refueling emissions, and that all the concerns 

expressed by the Appropriations Committee have been carefully 

considered. As always, we will be carefully considering all 

comments received in the upcoming public comment period and 

public hearing before proceeding with further regulatory action 

in this area. 

Sincerely, 

(Original signed by L. M. Thomas) 

Lee M. Thomas 

Enclosure s
EX-10.6





Exhibit 10.6


AMENDED EXHIBIT “A” TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED AND 

DAVID L. PEARSON 



	 	 	 
	BASE SALARY:
	 	$4,886.54 per week payable biweekly
	 	 	 
	PERFORMANCE BONUS:
	 	Eligible to participate in a performance based bonus program ranging from 0% to
 50 % of base salary
	 	 	 
	FRINGE BENEFITS:
	 	Eligible for standard executive benefits




THIS COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT, AT ITS DISCRETION, AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES AS IT ELECTS, TO CHANGE
OR ELIMINATE THE PERFORMANCE BONUS, INCENTIVES, OR OTHER BENEFITS.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amended Exhibit “A” as of the
29th  day of September , 2008 .



	 	 	 	 	 
	SYKES ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	/s/ James T. Holder	 	/s/ David L. Pearson
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	James T. Holder	 	Name: David L. Pearson
	 	 	Sr. Vice President	 	 





			
	Executive at will	 	 
	Revised 07/07	 	Initial




Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated

Page Number 11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           9,587
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                       185
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,202
<PP&E>                                           4,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,495
<BONDS>                                            598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           834
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,515
<SALES>                                            915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,322
<CGS>                                              626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01033501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/335

---

(2004/C 84 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject:   Allegations of manoeuvring to seize property owned by building cooperatives in Greece

Subject:

There has been a stream of allegations from numerous building cooperatives in Greece (such as ‘I YGIA’, which owns land at Saronida, Attica, and whose members have already appealed to Parliament's Committee on Petitions, the cooperative of employees of the Bank of Greece, which owns land at Anavissos, Attica, etc.), that the Greek authorities are continually obstructing the development of the property of which the cooperatives are the legal owners. They allege that the ultimate objective is the seizure of their property by the Greek State. The executive committees of numerous building cooperatives (which represent 500 000 Greek citizens according to the Greek press) point out that, although they hold the legal deeds to the property and have been recognised officially by the Greek State for almost 40 years, the Greek authorities constantly create obstacles through their administrative departments, compelling the cooperatives continuously to bring actions before the Greek courts, which duly rule in their favour. Despite that, the Greek authorities (in particular the Ministry for the Environment, Planning and Public Works) continue to concoct further obstacles with the aim — allegedly — of confiscating the cooperatives' property in violation of court rulings.

Is such alleged manoeuvring in order to seize property belonging to building cooperatives consistent with Community law? What action can the Commission take to put an end to the tactics adopted by the Greek authorities and to ensure that the members of the above cooperatives obtain the land to which they are entitled?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

(1 March 2004)

Since this matter is not covered by Community law, the Commission does not consider itself competent to reply to the questions put by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would also point out that any person who considers their fundamental rights to have been violated may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights once they have exhausted all the legal remedies available in their own country.

---
REF ID:A275335 

'- tOS!, SEORE'i' 

To.- ' 1Ir. \lhno Fo Friedman,, 

War Department,, 

'I WASHINGTON. 29tho May, 19420 

Dear Friedman, 

l. In the first place, very ma.n;y- thanks for all your kindness 

to me during lI\Y stay in Washington, both in the office and at your homeo 

Please tell Mrs. Friedman how much I arpreciated her kindness during my 

long stay with you, which must have ca.used her a very considerable amount 

of' extra trouble. I hope you and your fa.nu.ly all keep well. 

2. Kullback has been here for several days now. He is being 

shawn everything he wishes to see, is working very hard ancl seems 

per:f'ectly happy. He was apparently quite favourably impressed WJ.. th the 

work of the party in London which deals with FIDRAOORA. 

Stevens goes back to Washington shortly with our blessing. 

I propose to w.rite bJ.m a letter every month, and have asked h:un to do 

the same by me. I shall send him lI\Y letter in triplicate so that he 

can hand one copy to you and one to Wenger. 

Considerable progress has been made here both in m,y 

absence and since I arrived back, in the investig;:i.tion of the Japanese 

Military Attache cipher. Details will be forwarded to you as soon as a 

de:f'J.llJ.te stage has been reached. In the meantime it will all be shown 

to Kullba.ck. 

- ---- - --------

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A275335 

-2- - ' 

5~ The Geheim.schreiber is in production and is a gi:-eat worry to 

-:llS as we have had difficulty in finding the staff to service ito i'lJS it 

is 1 the whole of my research section has had to be turned on to it to the 

consequent detriment of the Japanese military investigationso 

6. I have not yet received the material and books of various kinds 

which you were going to send. me, but hope it will all arrive by the time 

I get back from my week's leave which starts to-day. I have found the 

last 3 weeks very wearing, trying to catch up on my job and do some 

cryptanalysis at the same ti.me. 

I am sending you by bag a dozen copies of my course, also a 

pamphlet by a friend of mine here which may interest you. The ~neral 

boo~ on the Shakespeare problem of which I told you is "I...e rnystere 

Sbakespearien" by COHI~S. I took a copy out of the London Library to 

look at 1 but don't know how to bey a copy to send you. 

8. Ivfy Japanese course seel'1S to be rather unexpectedly successful.. 

I am now trying to direct the students' energies into more practical 

lines during their last two months. 

Again man,y thanks 1 and best wishes to I irs. Friedman and. your 

family. 

Lt.Col. J.H. Tiltman, 

1 No.4- r.s. 

c/o. M.I.8., 

War Office, LONDON. s.w.1. 

Yours, 

/