alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_182895.htm


Exhibit 10.5


 


To: The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Henry Schein, Inc.


 


Effective as of April 6, 2020 (“Effective Date”), and in connection with the response of Henry Schein, Inc. (“Company”) to the COVID-19 pandemic, I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably waive 100% of my Base Salary (as defined in that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2019, by and between me and the Company  (“Employment Agreement”)), less any amounts necessary to cover any contributions I make to any benefit plans provided to me by the Company commencing on the Effective Date through June 30, 2020 (such period, the “Waiver Period”).  This waiver will be reflected as a reduction in my pay during the Waiver Period and is not a deferral. I understand the Company may request a further waiver subsequent to the Waiver Period, in which case, if I consent to a further waiver, I will provide a writing consenting to such extension.


 


Notwithstanding the foregoing, this waiver shall be disregarded and my salary will be deemed unchanged solely for purposes of calculating (i) any entitlement I may have to any annual or long term incentive award under the Employment Agreement or other agreement between me and the Company or any affiliate (“Agreement”), or (ii) any severance which I may be granted, or to which I may be entitled under any Agreement (including without limitation, the calculation of the “Make-Up Pension Payment”, as set forth in Section 5.3(b)(ii) the Employment Agreement), should I have a qualifying termination of employment with the Company during the Waiver Period. I also acknowledge that:


	 	
			(i)

				
			I hereby consent in writing to the waiver of my Base Salary and such waiver does not, nor is intended to, constitute “good reason” or breach under any Agreement;

			



 


	 	
			(ii)

				
			my waiver does not, nor is intended to, confer on me any rights or entitlements, or trigger any rights or entitlements, from the Company or any of its affiliates; and

			



 


	 	
			(iii)

				
			except with respect to my salary waiver for the Waiver Period as described above, the terms and conditions of any Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be deemed to be amended or supplemented in any way.

			



 


Although I acknowledge that this email constitutes a valid waiver and consent for all purposes (including under any Agreement), I will deliver a signed copy of this email to the Company by overnight courier or as otherwise required by the Company in accordance with the Employment Agreement as soon as administratively possible.


 


/s/ Stanley M. Bergman


Stanley M. Bergman
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 7, 2009
    /s/ Gary SawkaGary SawkaChief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1431

NADER MODANLO , Claimant

- Appellant ,

v. CHERYL E. ROSE , Trustee

- Appellee , and FINAL ANALYSIS, INCORPORATED , Debtor.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paul W. Grimm , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv
- 02544

- PWG )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 19, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Nader Modanlo , Appellant Pro Se. James Martin Hoffman , OFFIT KURMAN, PA , Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Nader Moda nlo appeals from the district court’s orders : (1) dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving a final application for attorney’s fees , and (2) denying Modanlo’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have

re viewed the record included on appeal and the parties ’ briefs, and we find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Modanlo v. Rose , No. 8:17

- cv
- 02544

- PWG (D. Md. July 2, 2018; Mar. 20, 2019)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
No. 36.

#### Elias Branch, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John Riley, defendant in error.

[1.] After *afi. fa.*has been levied, a claim interposed under our Claim Laws,, and returned to Court, the Sheriff has no right to withdraw the execution, at Ms pleasure; but the same must be withdrawn (if at all) by leave and order of the Court, granted in his discretion.

Rule, in Appling Superior Court. Decision by Judge Love, June Term, 1855.

*Afi. fa.*in favor of John Riley against John T. Hall, was' levied by the Sheriff of Appling County, upon a negro woman, and a claim was interposed thereto. Pending the claim, *162Counsel for plaintiff in *fi. fa.*gaye to the Sheriff written instructions to proceed to collect the money thereon. The Sheriff failing to make another levy, he was ruled therefor, and the Court below held him responsible for the amount due on the *fi. fa.*This decision is assigned as error.

Cole, for plaintiff in error.

I. L. Harris, representing Gaulden, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

The Sheriff has no right, at his pleasure, to withdraw for any purpose a *fi. fa.*which has been levied, and after claim intex'poscd, returned into Court.

It would be a bad rule, however, which held, that after a levy and claim in our State, no other levy can be made of the same execution, until the claim is tried and determined. There might be.very good reasons why another levy should be made, even where the first had been upon property sufficient to pay the debt; so that, in our opinion, the plaintiff is not, and should not be, deprived of the privilege of withdrawing the *fi. fa.*and of having another levy made upon it, should the purposes of justice render this proper. Yet, this privilege should not be exercised capriciously, or so as to harrass and oppress the defendant.

To prevent this and advance justice, the right so to withdraw the execution after claim interposed and returned, should be submitted to the sound discretion of the Coux't before whom the case is pending. The *fi. fa.*should therefore ■ be withdrawn by leave and order of the Court, after a satisfactory showing made by the plaintiff. And if the latter desire to withdraw the execution and direct another levy, he should apply to the Court for such leave; he has no right to require the Sheriff to do this for him; and the Sheriff, having *163■ no right, of his own volition, to withdraw the process, he ean- ' not properly be held in contempt for not doing so.

Let the judgment be reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,612
<PP&E>                                           9,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,726
<SALES>                                         27,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,126
<CGS>                                           20,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (29)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        79
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________

_____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135134 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices In re Adoption of RIO MARCELLA BORGHESE, Minor.

SALLY BORGHESE, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 135134 COA: 274337 Kent Circuit Court Family Division: 06-021909-AM MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 26, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1204 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 7, 2007

Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0419

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER LEE SPANGLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 29, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2024

06/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0419
# Sitemap

## July 08, 2014

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2014
- 07
- July 08, 2014

            - Ikhana Carries Raytheon-Developed Radar
            - Ikhana in Flight over Rogers Dry Lake
            - Ikhana, Side View Facing Left
            - Ikhana Over Mojave Desert
            - Stennis Space Center Sponsors Rocket Day Activities for New Orleans-Area Students
            - Solar-B/Hinode
            - SOFIA Undergoing Refitting In Germany
            - Ames Living Museum Appears In Mountain View, Sunnyvale
            - NASA Awards CubeSat Hardware and Integration Services Contract
            - Testing Completed on NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Backplane
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 1 8 , 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00626

- CV

Lucia Ortiz , Appellant

v.

OW Clear Creek , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIA NA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on November 18, 2021 . Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for

want of pro secution. Becau se appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40398.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant US Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shannon Rogers, pro se, Huntsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Shannon Rogers, Texas prisoner # 696608, appeals the denial of his pleading designated “Notice of Conflict,” which *420the district court liberally construed as a motion to substitute appellate counsel.

We hold that the district court did not err in liberally construing Rogers’s pro se pleading as a motion to substitute appellate counsel. Furthermore, the district court did not err in refusing to hold a *Garcia*** hearing. A *Garcia*hearing in Rogers’s case was unnecessary given (1) that Rogers himself brought the alleged conflict to the court’s attention in an effort to secure new appellate counsel with the intent of exercising his right to conflict-free representation and (2) that there was no “actual conflict of interest.” *See United States v. Greig,*967 F.2d 1018, 1022 (5th Cir.1992).

The grounds on which Rogers sought conflict-free representation do not constitute an “actual conflict” and are more properly characterized as claims of ineffective assistance, which as a general rule are not resolved on direct appeal. *See United States v. Sanchez-Pena,*336 F.3d 431, 445 (5th Cir.2003); *Mitchell v. Maggio,*679 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir.1982). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

*United States v. Garcia,*517 F.2d 272 (5th Cir.1975), *abrogated on other grounds by, Flanagan*v. *United States,*465 U.S. 259, 263, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,583
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,603
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     96,149
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             488
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               490
<LOANS>                                        259,540
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 412,793
<DEPOSITS>                                     346,785
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,281
<LONG-TERM>                                     22,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,055
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 412,793
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,905
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,495
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,638
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,585
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,884
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,754
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    670
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         442
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 64986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26752]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

Date and Time: Friday, October 29, 2010; 8:30 a.m. EDT.

Place: 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Program Planning.
    <bullet> Approval of New Black Panther Party Enforcement Report.
    <bullet> Consideration of Findings and Recommendations for Briefing 
Report on English-Only in the Workplace.
    <bullet> Consideration of Policy on Commissioner Statements and 
Rebuttals.
    <bullet> Update on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College 
Admissions--Some of the discussion of this agenda item may be held in 
closed session.
    <bullet> Update on Clearinghouse Project.
III. State Advisory Committee Issues.
    <bullet> Kentucky SAC.
    <bullet> Maryland SAC.
    <bullet> Vermont SAC.
IV. Staff Director's Report.
V. Announcements.
VI. Approval of Minutes of October 8 Meeting.
VII. Adjourn.

Contact Person for Further Information: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: October 19, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-26752 Filed 10-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00396-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. 324-651770-18

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE TABITHA FELTON, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: December 12, 2019
#### ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellant, v. H.T. JOHNSON, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Appellee.

No. 03-1486.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 20, 2003.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 2003 WL 22129079.

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Order entered January 21, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00589-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-19417

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 6, 2019 third motion for extension of time to file 

his opening brief. Appellant explains the extension is necessary because he is awaiting a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the original petition. He requests he be allowed 

to file his brief within fourteen days of the supplemental record being filed.

We note the supplemental clerk’s record was filed October 25, 2019. Accordingly, we 

GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than February 4, 

2020. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE