alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12327

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TARA LYNN ROBINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00193-KD-B-11

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12327 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12327

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Madden, appointed counsel for Tara Lynn Robinson

in this appeal following the district court’s revocation of supervised 

release, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals 

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals 

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and the revocation of Robinson’s supervised release 

and her new revocation sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12327 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 01/18/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### Bridget Clark *v.*The Village of North Muskegon.

*Writ of error*— Final *order*— Demurrer.

An order sustaining a demurrer to a declaration, and directing final judgment for the defendant unless the plaintiff file an amended declaration within 20 days, is not a final order until after the expiration of the time allowed for such amendment.

Error to Muskegon. (Diekerman, J.)

Argued April 22, 1891.

Decided May 8, 1891.

Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error.

Writ dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Turner, Turner & Turner,*for appellant.

*DeLong é O’Hara,*for defendant.

Champlin, 0. J.

This action was commenced in the circuit court for the county of Muskegon by declaration for an injury to the plaintiff, caused by an alleged defective sidewalk in the defendant village.

The defendant appeared and demurred to the declaration, setting up 19 distinct grounds of demurrer. The plaintiff joined in demurrer, and the court, after hearing argument, sustained the demurrer, and ordered that—

> “Upon payment by the plaintiff to defendant of the sum of ten dollars as an attorney fee within 20 days, the said plaintiff have leave to file an amended declaration in said cause, the defendant to plead thereto within the rules and practice of this court; otherwise it is ordered and adjudged by the court now here that the said plaintiff take nothing by her said declaration, and that the said defendant do recover against the said plaintiff its costs and charges by it about its defense in this behalf *30expended to be taxed, and that the said defendant have execution therefor.”

' This order was entered on the 2d day of February, 1891. The plaintiff, without amending her declaration .and without complying with the order in any respect, and before the expiration of the time allowed therefor, Bued out a writ of error to this Court, and the defendant here insists that the order sustaining the defendant’s demurrer is not a final order, until at least after the expiration of the 20 days, during all of which time the plaintiff was at liberty to amend her declaration. Its counsel cite in support of such proposition: Black,

Judgm. § 29; *Elwell v. Johnson,*74 N. Y. 80, and cases there cited.

We think that the- order entered sustaining the demurrer cannot be considered a final order until after the time limited therein for the plaintiff to amend her declaration has expired. It was therefore not such a judgment of the court as is regarded final and reviewable . in this Court.

It follows that the writ of error must be dismissed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1



May 5, 2020


[Named Officer]
Re:    Compensation Adjustments in 2020 Due to COVID-19


Dear [Named Officer]:


To mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on Invacare Corporation, by letter agreement between you and Invacare dated March 27, 2020 (the “Prior Letter”), you, along with the other named executive officers of Invacare, had agreed to voluntarily defer payment of (i) 20% of your base salary beginning April 1, 2020, (ii) 100% of your annual cash bonus earned in 2019, and (iii) your 2020 base salary increase.  In order to further mitigate the COVID-19 impacts, you hereby agree to reduce your base salary by 10% beginning May 1, 2020 for a period of three months, in lieu of continued 20% base salary deferrals after April 30, 2020, as set forth in clause (i) above and hereby confirm your agreement to the deferrals in clauses (ii) and (iii) above.  


The deferrals of (i) 20% of your April 2020 base salary, (ii) payment of your 2019 bonus and (iii) the adjustment of your 2020 base salary are expected to be in effect until at least October 1, 2020, at which time Invacare will determine whether it is reasonable to pay such deferred amounts. Consistent with Invacare’s executive compensation practices, annual salary adjustments, if any, would be effective as of January 1.  Notwithstanding the compensation adjustments described in this letter, to the extent that any other elements of executive compensation, such as annual cash bonus or equity awards, are determined based in part on reference to your 2020 base salary rate, the rate to be used for purposes of such determination will be your base salary rate as if the salary reductions and deferrals described herein had not occurred and as if your 2020 base salary adjustment had been made effective on January 1, 2020.


This letter agreement amends and supersedes the Prior Letter in its entirety.  Please acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by executing this letter in the space set forth below.


Sincerely,
INVACARE CORPORATION




By: /s/ Matthew E. Monaghan
Title: Chairman, President & CEO   
Agreed to and Accepted by:


______________________
























INVACARE CORPORATION


One Invacare Way, Elyria, Ohio 44035 
www.invacare.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1996 (unaudited) and Statements of Income for
the nine months ended December 31, 1996 (unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,907,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,152,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (158,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        646,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,864,000
<PP&E>                                           2,797,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,163,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,498,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,354,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         6,774,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,370,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,498,000
<SALES>                                         14,103,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,103,000
<CGS>                                            8,186,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,186,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,251,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,908,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,063,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,845,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,845,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .56

        

</TABLE>
#### Parker *v.*Eggleston.

Monday, *May*27.

An award in favour of the plaintiff for 30 dollars and 73 cents, with *the*exception of an allowance, as made by plaintiff, for hauling six hundred and twenty staves, — is void for uncertainty.

APPEAL from the *Dearborn*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

This was an action of *debt*on- an arbitration bond commenced before a justice of the peace, and taken *by*appeal to the Circuit Court. Plea before the justice, the general issue. In the Circuit Court, the cause was submitted to the decision of the Court' without a jury.

The plaintiff below, after giving in evidence the arbitration bond, offered as testimony an award ; the defendant objected, but his objection was overruled and the evidence received. The arbitrators, after reciting certain matters, awarded in favour of the plaintiff as follows: — “We accord with the decision and judgment as rendered by *William*Lemon, *Esq.*on the 24th. of March, 1834, 30 dollars and 73 cents as appears by the attached transcript, with the exception of an allowance as made by plaintiff for hauling six hundred and twenty staves.” The transcript attached to the award was also given in evidence, but showed nothing relative to the allowance for hauling the staves. It exhibited an uncon*129ditional judgment for 30 dollars and 73 cents. The bond, award, and transcript, constituted all the evidence in the case. The Court found for the plaintiff, and rendered judgment in his favour for- the sum named in the award and interest. The defendant moved for a new trial, but the motion was overruled ; and he appealed to this Court.

*S. C.*Stevens, for the appellant.

*C. H. Test,*for the appellee.

The record shows -that the Court below, overruled the objection of the defendant to the award as evidencé, but it does not appear that he excepted to the decision. Whether the correctness of that decision is now an open question, it is unnecessary to consider, because the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed on another ground. Admitting the' defendant has lost the benefit of his objection to the admission of the evidence by not taking exception at the time, the testimony is not sufficient to justify the judgment of the Circuit' Court. It is a well settled rule of law that uncertainty in an award renders it void. Kyd on Awards, 194. — 1 Bac. Abr. 218. The award in question .is obnoxious to this objection. It is for the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of money, but the sum to be paid is left'uncertain. The sum named in the award, 30 dollars and 73 cents, is liable to a deduction of unspecified amount; nor does the award make any reference by which its amount can be ascertained.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and. the proceedings *subsequent to the*filing *of the*appeal set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q OF
MUZAK CAPITAL CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>       0001013763
<NAME>      MUZAK CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1
<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>
#### Gilbert Lafferty v. Robert Lorimer et al.

*Contract*— Payment—Set-off,

1. The agreement of defendants to pay the plaintiff 20 cents per ton in coal for all orders taken and delivered at their office, said coal to be delivered as ordered, is construed as an agreement to pay plaintiff the agreed commission upon the coal delivered upon said orders, and upon orders which defendants, by their own fault, refused or neglected to fill.

2. In a suit to recover such percentage, it appeared that plaintiff *592had asked and received money from defendants from time to time on the contract, which was paid without examining the account, and upon the assumption that the orders would be filled, which payments exceeded the commissions on the coal actually delivered. And it is held that the payments were a proper subject of set-off, having been made under a mistake of fact, and that the defendants were entitled to judgment for the excess.

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.)

Argued June 20, 1891.

Decided July 28, 1891.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The. facts are stated in the opinion.

*Thomas ffislop,*for appellant.

*Barbour &*Rexford, for defendants.

Grant, J.

Defendants made the following agreement with plaintiff:

> “We agree to pay G. Lafferty twenty cents per ton in coal for all orders taken and delivered at our office, said coal to be *delivered*as ordered.

> “Robert Lorimer & Co.”

The date of this agreement is not given. We presume it was made about September 1, 1889, when defendants gave plaintiff a writing authorizing him to take orders for coal.

Plaintiff brought orders to the defendants for 1,744|-tons. Of this amount only 739 tons were delivered. Plaintiff-brings, suit-to recover $348.85, being the commission on all the orders taken by plaintiff. Plaintiff introduced evidence of the contract, and the taking and delivery of the orders, and rested. Defendants then proved that they did not refuse to deliver coal to any responsible party who ordered coal.' Defendant Lorimer went to many of those whose orders plaintiff had furnished, and several of them declined to' take it. Some of *593these orders were canceled by agreement between plaintiff and defendants.

Plaintiff had asked and received from defendants money from time to time on this contract. Defendants had paid these amounts without examining" the account, and evidently upon the assumption that the orders would be filled. The amount so paid exceeded the commissions on the coal actually delivered.

"We think it was the plain intent of 'this contract that plaintiff was to be paid a commission upon the coal delivered upon these orders,-and upon any orders which defendants, by their own fault, refused or neglected to fill. There is no evidence in the record upon which to base such neglect or- refusal.

The circuit judge correctly directed a verdict for the defendants.

The only other question is, were the defendants entitled to judgment for the amount. they had overpaid? We think these payments were the proper subject of set-off, and that they were properly held by the court to have been paid under a mistake of fact.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
# The SpaceX Crew-8 crew members at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center

jsc2024e005953 (Jan. 12, 2024) --- (Left to right) NASA Astronauts Jeanette Epps, Matthew Dominick, Michael Barrett, and Roscosmos Cosmonaut Alexander Grebenkin pose for a group photo at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. They make up NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8 mission, launching to the International Space Station in February 2024. Credit: SpaceX

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/jsc2024e005953-left-to-right-nasa-astronauts-jeanette-epps-matthew-dominick-michael-barrett-and-roscosmos-cosmonaut-alexander-grebenkin-pose-for-a-group-photo-at-nasas-kennedy-space-ce-2/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- International Space Station
TakenJanuary 12, 2024Image CreditSpaceXSize3000x2000pxNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Feb 12, 2024								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Mark A. Garcia								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Andre M.
Hilliou, Chief Executive Officer of Full House Resorts, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Full House Resorts, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  |                                         
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ ANDRE M. HILLIOU .
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  | Andre M. Hilliou Chief Executive Officer



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Full House Resorts, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, James Meier, Chief Financial Officer of Full House Resorts, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Full House Resorts, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                                    
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ JAMES MEIER .
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  | James Meier Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier MWD Systems, LLC v. Weatherford International,

LLC and Weatherford, U.S., L.P.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00556

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 25169

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

Appellants, Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier MWD Systems, LLC, have file an unopposed motion to abate this appeal until February
17, 2020, to facilitate settlement. The Court had previously abated this appeal until February 3, 2020, at which time the appeal was reinstated. The Court grants the unopposed

motion. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2).

This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed form this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket on February 17, 2020

. The Court will consider an appropriate motion to exte nd the abatement period. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party or on

its own motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: February 11, 2020
#### ALFRED A. ROSATI v. VIJAY KAPOOR AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES, INC.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.