alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Creekpaum *v.*Templeton.

A justice of the peace may hear and determine an application to enter satisfaction of a judgment on his docket, whenever the debtor alleges payment or satisfaction, due notice of the application having been given; and an appeal from the determination in such case lies to the Circuit Court.

*Tuesday, June*8.

ERROR to the *Warren*Circuit Court.

*R. A.*Chandler, for the plaintiff.

Dewey, J.

This was an application by a judgment-debtor to a justice of the peace to enter on his docket satisfaction of a certain judgment rendered by him, and alleged to have been paid. Notice was served upon the judgment-plaintiff, and the parties met before the justice, who, on hearing the proofs, decided the judgment not to have been paid. The applicant took an appeal. The Circuit Court, on the motion of the judgment-plaintiff, dismissed the appeal, and rendered judgment for costs against the applicant.

This judgment is erroneous. The statute regulating the powers and duties of justices of the peace, authorizes those magistrates “ to hear and determine any application to enter satisfaction of judgments on their dockets, whenever the debtor alleges payment or satisfaction, the creditor, his agent, or attorney, first having due notice thereof.” R. S. 1838, p. 379. The right of appeal from decisions on these applications is not particularly given, but we think it is included in the general provision respecting appeals from the judgments of justices of the peace. R. S. 1838, p. 383. The Circuit Court should have heard the evidence, and determined whether the applicant had a right to have satisfaction of the judgment entered or not; and they should have entered or refused it accordingly.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3
[Jazz Pharmaceuticals Letterhead]
March 30, 2020
Michael P. Miller
[Address on file]
Re:    Amendment to Transition and Termination Agreement
Dear Mike,
As discussed, this letter amends the Transition and Termination Agreement (the “Agreement”) between you and Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) dated October 31, 2019, as set forth below:
	
		
	●
	The time period that you will remain in your current position of Executive Vice President, U.S. Commercial is extended through May 31, 2020, or such later date if deemed appropriate by Bruce Cozadd and Dan Swisher.  Thereafter, you will move into the project-based role of EVP, Special Projects and you will cease to be a Section 16 officer or a member of the Company’s Executive Committee.  You will remain in the EVP, Special Projects role for a period of three (3) months, and then your employment will end (this date is referred to as the “Termination Date” in the Agreement).  During your period of continued employment (both in your current role, and once you move into the role of EVP, Special Projects), you will continue to be paid your current full-time base salary, you will receive regular employee benefits coverage (subject to the terms and conditions of the benefit plans), and your equity awards will continue to vest on their regular vesting schedules.

	●
	As already provided under Section 3(c) of the Agreement, the 2020 prorated bonus that you will be eligible to receive will be calculated based on the period of time that you remain in your current role of Executive Vice President, U.S. Commercial.  Thus, if you move out of that role effective May 31, 2020, the 2020 prorated bonus will be calculated as 5/12th of the applicable “at target” amount as set forth in the Cash Bonus Plan (which is a total of $100,312.50).




The other terms of the Agreement are not affected by this Amendment and will continue in effect, including but not limited to the terms relating to the Final Payment and Company-paid COBRA as set forth in Section 3.  Any further modification or amendment of the Agreement must be contained in a writing signed by both you and a duly authorized officer of the Company.




 








March 30, 2020
Michael P. Miller
We appreciate your continued leadership and support for our patients during this unprecedented period.
	
		
	Sincerely,


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	 

	By:
	/s/ Heidi Manna

	 
	   Heidi Manna
   Chief Human Resources Officer

	 
	 

	REVIEWED, UNDERSTOOD, AND AGREED:

	/s/ Mike Miller

	Michael P. Miller

	31-Mar-2020

	Date
|                 
|-----------------
|Journal Home Page

# Journal Preparation

I chose Apollo 15 as the first flight in the AFJ for a number of reasons. Along with Apollo 17, 15 is arguably the finest example of an entirely successful, advanced Apollo mission. It had just about everything by way of mission operations, crowned by one of the most spectacular landing sites visited by humans. My feeling then, was that if I never get to bring another flight into the Journal, describing the flight of Apollo 15 will do much to inform others of how Apollo went about its business.

With kind help from NASA's History Office, the Apollo Flight Journal was prepared from Technical and Public Affairs Office transcripts made at the time. These were converted to electronic text and checked, where possible, with audio recordings of the air ground communications.

With much help from Frank O'Brien, who agreed to collaborate with me on this project from its first days, relevant commentary was added, along with other supporting material, which was derived from research of the Flight Plan, CSM and LM checklists, mission reports, debriefings and contemporary and later books and documents. Apollo 15's commander, David R. Scott, reviewed an early version, answered queries and, along with the mission's Command Module Pilot, Al Worden, added contributions. Mission photography has been included where available.

Since the Apollo 15 FJ came out, the work had slowly extended to other missions in a process that sees no end. In this, I am very grateful to a bunch of folk who have adopted a mission and brought their time and talents to it. 

The transcript is heavily endowed with long lists of digits when Pre-Advisory Data (PAD) lists were being read up to the crew, to be promptly read back as a check that they have been successfully copied. These numbers were read without punctuation and are very difficult to interpret in this form. However, since punctuation was added to the technical transcript, we have preserved this transcript's colons and decimal points in the interests of clarity.

David Woods

October 1998, March 2009

Last updated 2017-02-10
#### M. Harris *v.*Boggs.

Goods deposited with a tavernkeeper are not protected from distress for rent by the statute of 1838, unless the deposite be made by a guest at the tavern.

A plea to an action of replevin brought by *Jl. B.,*that by virtue of a distress warrant, &c. directed to the defendant, a constable, &c. against *C. D.*(setting out the substance of the warrant,) the defendant distrained the goods specified in the declaration on the demised premises for rent, &c., . is good.

*Monday, May*24.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court. Replevin. Pleas, 1. Property in one *W. Harris;*2. Property in the defendant; 3. That by virtue of a distress warrant issued by *Oliver T.*Jones, a justice of the peace, &c., directed to the defendant, a constable, &c., against one *W.*Harris, (setting out the substance of the warrant,) — the defendant distrained the goods specified in the declaration on the demised premises for rent, &c. The defendant also made cognizance, to which there were several pleas, but it is unnecessary to set them out as no opinion respecting them was expressed by the *490Court. Replication to the third plea, that the plaintiff had, on, &c., purchased the goods in the declaration mentioned from *W. Harris,*for a valuable consideration, and had deposited them with said *Harris,*a tavernkeeper, in the due course of business, of which the defendant had notice. The replication was demurred to and the demurrer sustained. Pinal judgment for the defendant.

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

*J. S. Newman,*for the defendant.'

Sullivan, J.

The first error assigned is, that the demurrer to the replication to the defendant’s third plea was improperly sustained. The 12th section of the act regulating distress for rent, R. S. 1838, p. 472, exempts from distress, amongst other things, property deposited with a tavernkeeper “in the usual course of business.” Upon the construction of that statute depends the sufficiency of the replication. By a deposite with a tavernkeeper “ in the usual course of business,” we understand a deposite of goods with him, by a guest, for safe-keeping. In the course of an innkeeper’s business, no other deposite of goods is usually, if ever, made with him. This being the plain import of the statute, the plaintiff, in her replication, should have brought the goods for which she sues within the exemption, by showing herself to have been a guest at the inn of *W. Harris.*The replication is defective for not doing so, and the demurrer to it was well sustained.

Objections were made to the plea, but we think without foundation. The plea shows a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of the proper township, directed to the defendant who was a constable of the township, commanding him to make the distress. This warrant was a sufficient justification to the officer. *Harris*v. *M’Faddin,*2 Blackf. 71.

As the third plea presents a complete bar to the plaintiff’s action, it is not necessary to examine the other pleadings in the cause.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# Sitemap

## April 23, 2012

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2012
- 04
- April 23, 2012

            - A New View of the Tarantula Nebula
            - Wavy, Wiggly Ring
            - A New View of the Tarantula Nebula
            - Cassini Investigates Titan’s Chemical Factory
            - Clarifications and corrections to the ROSES Summary of Solicitation
Ex-99.4
Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
Certificatesholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    Class           Interest           Principle            Losses           Ending Balance
    -----           --------           ---------            ------           --------------
<S>                    <C>              <C>                         <C>                 <C>
A1                     16,856.32        1,785,098.86                0.00                $0.00
A10                   549,248.08        9,080,340.89                0.00          $589,775.92
A11                 1,909,447.13       39,641,545.85                0.00                $0.15
A12                         0.00        1,468,205.00                0.00                $0.00
A13                    30,213.56        3,235,776.18                0.00                $0.00
A14                 1,539,825.90       -1,539,825.90                0.00       $23,654,885.26
A2                    892,874.78       15,029,978.43                0.00        $3,625,021.57
A3                  2,676,172.41                0.00                0.00       $39,647,000.00
A4                     21,858.98        2,194,852.74                0.00                $0.00
A5                        921.80                0.00                0.00                $0.00
A6                    805,822.61        7,217,896.14                0.00        $9,884,487.39
A7                    804,783.15        6,728,013.05                0.00        $9,213,621.13
A8                     72,809.30        1,856,030.43                0.00        $2,541,725.33
A9                    206,761.78                0.00                0.00                $0.00
B1                    360,351.05           70,817.82                0.00        $5,299,916.45
B2                    130,344.89           25,615.96                0.00        $1,917,066.66
B3                     69,003.82           13,560.94                0.00        $1,014,883.74
B4                     69,003.82           13,560.94                0.00        $1,014,883.74
B5                     23,001.25            4,520.31                0.00          $338,294.57
B6                     38,336.80            7,534.12                0.00          $563,844.17
PO                          0.00          367,518.41                0.00        $1,098,367.76
RL                          0.00                0.00                0.00                $0.00
RU                          0.36                0.00                0.00                $0.00
X                     257,192.81                0.00                0.00                $0.00
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>    1000
       
<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         4783
<SECURITIES>                                                    200
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   854
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                    2248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              10271
<PP&E>                                                        16390
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 5067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                23371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          4217
<BONDS>                                                        3802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          3184
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                        143
<OTHER-SE>                                                    11403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  23371
<SALES>                                                        2037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               2037
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               4033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1757)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                (182)
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.11)
        


</TABLE>
2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-25-2011

Mukash Kumar Patel v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 10-1554

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mukash Kumar Patel v. Atty Gen USA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1330.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1330
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 16, 2011

No. 10-1554

MUKASH KUMA MANEKLAL PATEL,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent

(BIA-1: A074-586-999 )

Present: BARRY, HARDIMAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

Motion filed by Respondent Atty Gen USA to publish the opinion filed on 

02/24/11.

Respectfully,

Clerk/trg

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing Motion is GRANTED. The designation of the opinion in this matter as 

precedential does not alter the Court’s previously issued judgment. As such the filing 

date of the judgment and the decision remain unchanged.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas M. Hardiman

Circuit Judge

Dated: April 25, 2011

CJG/cc: Matthew B. George, Esq.

 Dawn S. Conrad, Esq.

 Harold D. Block, Esq.
fnd_Ex10_10



		

			Exhibit 10.10

		





		
			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 David V. Christopherson, the undersigned individual (the “Executive”), and is intended to modify the Second 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/ David V. Christopherson___________
Name:  David V. Christopherson
		

		
			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]
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




       In connection with the Quarterly Report of Berkeley Technology Limited on
Form  10-Q for the  period  ended  September  30,  2008 as  filed  with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Arthur I. Trueger,  as
Executive Chairman of the registrant,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

       (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 the
registrant.



Date:  November 14, 2008                         By:    /s/  Arthur I. Trueger

                                                        Arthur I. Trueger
                                                        Executive Chairman
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ISRAEL MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50389

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-05183-MMA-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: LIPEZ,** WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Israel Martinez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for

illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

FILED

JUN 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

 ** The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, Circuit Judge for the First

Circuit, sitting by designation.
Martinez-Gonzalez challenges the removal order underlying his conviction

on due process grounds, pursuant to § 1326(d). He contends that his 2009 removal

hearing was fundamentally unfair because the Immigration Judge failed to

adequately inform Martinez-Gonzalez of his apparent eligibility for voluntary

removal and to afford Martinez-Gonzalez an opportunity to apply for that relief. 

See United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 780 F.3d 906, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 8

C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)).

The Immigration Judge advised Martinez-Gonzalez that he may be eligible

for voluntary departure and asked Martinez-Gonzalez whether he would like to

have a hearing on voluntary departure. This colloquy was not fundamentally

unfair. Cf. United States v. Melendez-Castro, 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

2