alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,343,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,139,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 80,149,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            84,631,929
<PP&E>                                       2,085,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                 960,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,328,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,530,533
<BONDS>                                     30,135,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,291
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,518,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,328,401
<SALES>                                     51,354,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,354,453
<CGS>                                       44,484,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,484,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,621,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             717,201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                588,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                   241,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            347,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   347,154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
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

I, L. George Klaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ L. George Klaus                                                  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | L. George Klaus Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Michael A. Piraino, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Epicor Software Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epicor Software Corporation.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael A. Piraino                                                                                              
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Michael A. Piraino Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM BASKERVILLE.

March 10, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL SANTUCCI.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ESTATE OF PAUL S. TERRY, JR., 

DECEASED,

Petitioner

v.

CATHEDRAL VILLAGE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 290 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONNIE MATTHEWS.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GRADY LIVINGSTON.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
fnd_Ex10_11



		

			Exhibit 10.11

		





		
			ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
		

		
			THIS ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Addendum”) is dated as of March 26,  2020,  by and between Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Operating Company”), Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Holdings” and, together with the Operating Company, the “Company”), and Brian K. Robbins, the undersigned individual (the “Executive”), and is intended to modify the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of February 3, 2020 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between the Company and the Executive.  Any capitalized term not defined herein will have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Employment Agreement.
		

		
			In light of the ongoing novel coronavirus a/k/a COVID-19 pandemic (“COVID-19”) and its impact on the business and operations of the Company and its affiliates, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth below.
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			The Employment Agreement shall be amended to append the following provision to Section 2(a):




		
			Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, as a result of the novel coronavirus a/k/a COVID-19 pandemic, Executive agrees to waive 30% of his Base Salary for a 90-day period beginning on March 27, 2020, or such shorter period of time as the Chairman of the Board may determine.  Any severance amounts payable pursuant to Section 4(b) shall be calculated without giving effect to such reduction.
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			The Employment Agreement shall be amended to append the following provision to Section 4(b):




		
			Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, the reduction of Executive’s Base Salary set forth in Section 2(a) shall not constitute Good Reason for any purpose under this Agreement and shall not entitle Employee to any severance or other payment pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise.
		

		
			Additionally, the Executive hereby acknowledges and agrees that Good Reason under the Employment Agreement has not occurred prior to or as a result of this Addendum.  Except as expressly hereby amended, the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.  To the extent a conflict arises between the terms of the Employment Agreement and this Addendum, the terms of this Addendum will prevail.
		

		
			 
		

		
			
		

		
			


		 





		

		
			 
		

		
			EXECUTIVE
		

		
			By: /s/ Brian K. Robbins_______________________________
Name:  Brian K. Robbins
		

		
			FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC.
		

		
			By: /s/ Thomas V. Taylor_______
Name:  Thomas V. Taylor
Title:     CEO
		

		
			FLOOR & DECOR HOLDINGS, INC.
		

		
			By: /s/ Thomas V. Taylor_______
Name:  Thomas V. Taylor
Title:     CEO
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			[Signature Page to Addendum to Employment Agreement]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 5**  **77**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

— Appell ee ,
v. JONATHAN GIANNONE , Defendant

— Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District for District of Sou th Ca rolina , at C olumbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. ( 3 : 06

- c v - 0 1 0 1 1

- CM C

- 1; 3:10

- cv - 70256

- CMC )

Submitted : October 25, 2011 Decided: November 14, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curia m opinion
.
Jonathan Giannone , Appellant Pro Se
. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United S t ates Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Giannone seeks to ap peal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of ap pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jur ists 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 procedu ral 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 review ed the recor d and conclude that Giannone 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Janice ABNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-56539.

D.C. No. CV-01-08649-CBM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Janice Abner, pro se, Inglewood, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

J. Michael Declues, Esq., Declues & Burkett, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Janice Abner appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing her employment *844discrimination action against the Compton Unified School District, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo determinations of res judicata, *C.D. Anderson & Co. v. Lemos,*832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1987), and for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of leave to amend, *Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc.,*170 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Abner’s claims connected to her reassignment from school psychologist to classroom teacher on res judicata grounds because she has brought four previous actions arising from the same transactional nucleus of facts in state and federal court, and could have asserted these claims in the prior actions. *See Costantini v. Trans World Airlines,*681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir.1982) (res judicata bars all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties on the same cause of- action).

The district court properly dismissed Abner’s second cause of action without prejudice because actions to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are not allowed under state contract law, *see Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pierce Packing Company,*669 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir.1982), and because the district court allowed Abner leave to amend her complaint to state a Title VII claim, *see Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Abner’s motion to further amend her complaint, because amendment would have been futile. *See Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc.,*885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Frederickson *v.*Fowler and Others.

The provision in the ordinance of 1816, exempting certain lands from taxes for five years from the time of sale, does not apply to land reserved to individuals by an Indian treaty.

*Wednesday, November 25.*

APPEAL from the *Lake*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

The appellant brought an action of trespass *de bonis asportatis*against the appellees. Plea, not guilty. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the defendants.

*410
      *J. B. Niks, C. Fletcher,*and 0. *Butler,*for the appellant.

*J. II. Bradley,*for the appellees.

The facts are as follows: — In 1832, a purchase of lands, situate in the northern part of this state, was made from the Indians by the *United States.*The Indians reserved in the treaty a certain tract of land, in *Lake*county, for *John B. Chadanais.*In 1835, the land thus reserved was selected in conformity with the treaty, and was sold by *Chadanais*to the plaintiff. Afterwards, in 1837, the land was assessed for state and county revenue; and the goods mentioned in the declaration were regularly taken by the collector for the purpose of collecting the tax. For that taking, which was within five years from the date of the treaty, this action was brought.

The only question in the cause is, whether the provision in the ordinance of 1816, exempting certain lands from taxes for five years from the time of sale, applies to this reserved land?

We think the land was subject to the taxes for which the goods were taken. . The exemption in the ordinance only applies to lands sold by the *United States;*and this is not such a case. *Chadanais*did not obtain the land by a purchase from the *United States,*but by virtue of the reservation in his favour contained in the treaty.

The statute of 1834, which expressly requires the taxing of such reserved land as that under consideration, instead of being unconstitutional as the plaintiff contends, is only declaratory of the previously existing law relating to the revenue.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# View of STS-129 MS4 Satcher during EVA3

S129-E-008103 (23 Nov. 2009) --- Astronaut Robert L. Satcher Jr., STS-129 mission specialist, participates in the mission's third and final session of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction and maintenance continue on the International Space Station. During the five-hour, 42-minute spacewalk, Satcher and astronaut Randy Bresnik (out of frame), mission specialist, removed a pair of micrometeoroid and orbital debris shields from the Quest airlock and strapped them to the External Stowage Platform #2, then moved an articulating foot restraint to the airlock, and released a bolt on a starboard truss ammonia tank assembly (ATA) in preparation for an STS-131 spacewalk that will replace the ATA.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s129e008103/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenNovember 23, 2009ProducerJSCSize1920x1311pxPIA Numbers129e008103The National 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:								  								Apr 21, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report onForm 10-K of the WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-C22 (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A. (f/k/a NCB, FSB), as NCB MasterServicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, NationalCooperative Bank, N.A. (f/k/a NCB, FSB), as NCB Special Servicer, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as TrustAdvisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, PGIM RealEstate Loan Services, Inc. (formerly known as Prudential AssetResources, Inc.), as Primary Servicer, Computershare Trust Company,National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the CertificateAdministrator, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Custodian, Midland Loan Services, a Division ofPNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer for the Stamford PlazaPortfolio Mortgage Loan, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer for theStamford Plaza Portfolio Mortgage Loan, Situs Holdings, LLC, as OperatingAdvisor for the Stamford Plaza Portfolio Mortgage Loan, and Computershare TrustCompany, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian for the Stamford Plaza Portfolio Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:March 17,2023

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ANTONIO LLAMAS REYES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70365

Agency No. A037-516-672

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Juan Antonio Llamas Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to remand. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

JUN 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70365

denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th

Cir. 2008), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Llamas Reyes’ motion to

remand, because the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its

broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant

remand. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The BIA’s denial

of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to

law.”).

We reject Llamas Reyes’ due process claim because the BIA’s decision

explained its analysis of the evidence Llamas Reyes submitted with the motion to

remand, and reflects that the BIA properly considered the issues raised by Llamas

Reyes’ motion. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“[T]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## Mauro Freschi

#### Mauro y Margarita Freschi



I was born in Caracas, Venezuela, in October of 1956; my parents are of Veneto, Italy. As a boy, my passion was the development of the space era.  From 14 years of age,  I was devoted to photography, first, as an apprentice and then as a professional. For 11 years it was my great passion. Since 1981, I have worked in the family company, manufacturing injection molds for plastics.  At this time we are enabling a system of CAD/CAM for the best development in our work.

My hobby is to make models of astronautical objects and old automobiles; and, of course, my old passion for photography continues. I am married, from 1982, with Margarita Brzobohaty who  helps me with my pictures.



### Sad news





#### Eternal Moment



Mauro Freschi's Visor Reflection

#### Visor Reflection