alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

May 18, 1999

Mr. Gregory S. Baletsa
c/o GSI Lumonics Inc.
39 Manning Road
Billerica, MA, 01821, U.S.A.

Dear Greg:

We refer you to the letter agreement dated April 21, 1999, sent to you by GSI
Lumonics and accepted by you, which sets out certain severance and termination
benefits which you will be entitled to in certain circumstances (the "Original
Agreement").  This letter (the "Amending Agreement") is intended to amend that
Original Agreement as follows:

1.   The term "Company" as defined in the Original Agreement shall include any
     corporation that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of GSI Lumonics Inc.

2.   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Original
     Agreement, in the event that you voluntarily terminate your employment with
     the Company at any time on or before September 22, 1999, you shall be
     entitled to receive from the Company an amount equal to your Total
     Compensation multiplied by a factor of 12. Such amount shall be payable as
     follows:

     (a)  50% 30 days after the Date of Termination;

     (b)  the balance in equal consecutive monthly payments which shall be paid
          on the first day of each month without interest commencing on the 1st
          day of the month following the Date of Termination;

Any term used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the
Original Agreement.

Please signify your acceptance of the amendments set out herein by signing and
returning to the Company the enclosed copy of this letter.

Sincerely yours,
GSI LUMONICS INC.


Per:    "Michael W. Lupiano"
        --------------------------------


Agreed to this 1st day of June , 1999.

/s/ "Greg S. Baletsa"
----------------------------------------
Signature

Greg S. Baletsa
----------------------------------------
Print Name
#### The Commercial Credit Corp., Appellant, *v.*Wasson, Appellee.

(No. 494

Decided March 13, 1944.)

*Messrs. Carpenter & Freeman,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Young & Young,*for appellee.

Carpenter, J.

On June 23,1941, plaintiff took judgment against the defendant upon a warrant of attorney contained in a cognovit note of which plaintiff was a holder in due course. On October 11, 1941, after the term at which the judgment was taken, defendant, under Section 11631, General Code, filed a petition to vacate the judgment. It alleged that the note was a forgery and that he had no notice of the proceedings in which the judgment was taken until execution was served under it on September 16, 1941. A proposed answer was tendered with the petition which answer denied that any amount was due on the note.

The answer to the petition to vacate admitted that no summons was served on defendant or any notice given when the judgment was obtained. After trial on these issues, the trial court, by its entry finding the judgment was for more than was due and that no sum*182mons was served on defendant, vacated the judgment and gave leave to file the tendered answer. Plaintiff appealed on questions of law. The error assigned is that the judgment is contrary to law and unsupported by the evidence.

There was a sharp dispute as to whether the note was a forgery. Apparently the trial court concluded it was, or at least that a question was presented which should be submitted to a jury. Section 11637, General Code. If it was a forged note, defendant was not liable' on it for any amount and subsection 9 of Section 11631, General Code, applied. This court can not say that the court erred in its conclusion. *Weaver*v. *Weaver,*15 Ohio Law Abs., 374, was a similar case and the same results were approved.

The order made by the trial court unqualifiedly vacated the judgment. The better and approved practice is to suspend the judgment pending trial of the issues, thereby preserving any liens or securities obtained under the judgment. Section 11637, General Code. In this respect the judgment is modified and as modified is affirmed.

*Judgment modified and affirmed as modified.*

Lloyd and Stuart, JJ., concur.
#### Comparet, Administrator, *v.*Ewing and Another.

If a creditor receive the principal sum due him, he cannot afterwards sue for the interest.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

*D. H. Colerick*and *J. G. Walpole,*for the plaintiff.

*W. H. Coombs*and *R. Brackenridge,*for the defendants.

Dewey, J.

This was an action of debt on a promissory note made by the defendant’s intestate, and dated *September*17th, 1831, for 591 dollars and 76 cents, with interest from date. Pleas, *nil debet, plene administravit,*and accord and satisfaction; issues of fact upon these pleas; trial by the Court; judgment for the plaintiffs for 257 dollars and 41 cents in debt, and 80 dollars and 4 cents in damages, and for costs.

It appeared in evidence that on the 17th of *December,*1838, the plaintiffs received the principal due by the note, and that the object of the suit was the recovery of the interest. We do not think the judgment of the Circuit Court can be sustained. If a creditor receive the principal sum due him, as such, there is nothing on which to sustain an after action: he cannot sue for the interest. *Dixon*v. *Parkes,*1 Esp. R. *110.*—Tillotson v. *Preston,*3 Johns. R. 229.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Woody and Another *v.*Pickard.

If one of the holders of a joint promissory note and one of the makers submit to arbitration the question whether the note is valid as to such maker, and the award be that it is not, the award will not bar a suit by all the holders against all the makers of the note.

APPEAL from the *Parke*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Debt by *J. Woody*and *Whitehead*against *Pickard*and *Williams.*The action is founded on a joint promissory note made by the defendants to T. *Woody,*dated *September*27th, 1841, for 640 dollars payable on the 15th of *April,*1842, and by T. *Woody*assigned, on the day of its date, to the plaintiffs and one *Chapin,*since deceased. *Williams*made default. *Pickard*pleaded, that on the 10th of *February,*1844, certain differences having arisen between *J. Woody, T. Woody,*and himself, respecting the validity of the note as to him, they entered into a submission of arbitration, by bond, by which the question of the validity of the note as to *Pickard■*was referred and submitted to certain arbitrators, who regularly decided and awarded, among other things, that the note was invalid as to *Pickard.*The plea was demurred to and the demurrer overruled. There were several other pleas which led to issues of fact. Final judgment for *Pickard*on the demurrer; nothing being said as to *Williams*in the judgment.

We do not think this judgment can be supported. The demurrer should have been sustained. One of several partners may submit a partnership transaction with a third person to arbitration, and if the award be against the submitting *56partner and be not performed,, he may be liable on his bond; but he cannot bind his copartners by such submission, without they in some way assent to it; nor will the award rendered thereon bar a joint action by the firm for the same matter or cause of action which was submitted to and passed upon by the arbitrators. *Stead et al.*v. *Salt,*3 Bingh. 101.— *Boyd*v. *Emmerson,*2 Ad. & Ell. 184. — See, also, *M'Bride*v. *Hagan,*1 Wend. *326.-*— -Karthaus v. *Ferrer,*1 Pet. 222.— *Strangford*v. *Green,*2 Mod. 228.

*W. P. Bryant, A. Kinney,*and *S¡ B. Gookins,*for the appellants.

*R. W. Thompson,*for the appellee,

The reason of this rule is, that submitting matters to arbitration, being no part of the regular business of an ordinary copartnership, is not within the agencies and powers of the partners growing out of their connection in trade. If this be true of partners it must also be true of the joint holders of a promissory note. There is certainly no more intimate connection or implied agency between the latter than the former. We think the award set up in the plea cannot affect the interest or rights of those who were not parties to the submission. It cannot, therefore, defeat the joint right of action by the assignees against the makers of the note. To suffer it to have that effect would be, we think, carrying the rights and liabilities of joint contractors to an unreasonable and injurious extent.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
ELLIOT M. SEE, JR.,

NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

PERSONAL DATA: Born in Dallas, Texas, on July 23, 1927. Died February 28, 

1966, in St. Louis Missouri in the crash of a T-38 jet. He is survived by his wife 

Marilyn and their three children. 

EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; 

Master of Science degree in engineering, University of California at Los Angeles.

ORGANIZATIONS: Member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots; 

Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

EXPERIENCE: Naval Aviator from 1953 to 1956. 

General Electric Company from 1949 to 1953 and 1956 to 1962 as a flight test 

engineer, group leader, and experimental test pilot. Served as project pilot on J79-8 engine development program in 

connection with F4H aircraft. Conducted powerplant flight tests on the J-47, J-73, J-79, CJ805 and CJ805 aft-fan engines. 

This work involved flying in F-86, XF4D, F-104, F11F-1F, RB-66, F4H, and T-38 aircraft.

See logged over 3,700 hours flying time, including 3,200 hours in jet aircraft.

NASA EXPERIENCE: See was one of nine pilot astronauts selected in September 1962. He participated in all phases of 

the astronaut training program and was subsequently given responsibility for monitoring the design and development of 

guidance and navigation systems. He also aided in the coordination for mission planning. He was selected as pilot of the 

back-up crew for the Gemini 5 mission, and the command pilot for the Gemini 9 flight.

Mr. See died on February 28, 1966, in St. Louis, Missouri, in the crash of a T-38 aircraft.

FEBRUARY 1966

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel Channels, GPCRs, and Proteins of Neurodegeneration.
    Date: November 22, 2010.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Geoffrey G. Schofield, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4040-A, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1235. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b6b4beb7b7a3b4a8a291b2a2a3ffbfb8b9ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1077757f767662756963507363623e7e79783e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel Member Conflict: Genomics and Signal Transduction in Cancer 
Cells.
    Date: November 23-24, 2010.
    Time: 10 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Elaine Sierra-Rivera, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6184, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1779. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6849f809384978593b6958584d8989f9ed8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14667d627166756771547767663a7a7d7c3a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27575 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Patrick Clements *v.*Wathen’s Admr.

Instructions — Bill of Exceptions.

Where the instructions were not made a part of the bill of exceptions, signed by the judge, they are no part of the record, and will not be considered by this court.

APPEAL EROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

September 25, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

Whether or not the law was correctly expounded to the jury we have not the means to determine, as the instructions are not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, nor does it contain any reference to them so as to assure the court that those which are found in the record are the same that were offered on the trial of *203the cause; a mere statement of the clerk of what instructions were given, and which refused, is not sufficient; that is not a part of his official duty; nor is he authorized to copy them in the record unless they are contained in the bill of exceptions signed by tt^e judge, or such reference is made to them therein as fully identifies them and makes them a part of the original bill of exceptions, which is not done in this case.

Upon the subject of the finding of the jury, if the verdict is not sustained by the weight of the evidence, there certainly is no preponderance against it, and on that ground a new trial was pi’operly refused by the court below.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

t0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144664

JAMI L. THADEN, TERI L. BEAL, and

JONI S. MERINO,

Plaintiffs/Counter- Defendants-Appellants,

v SC: 144664

COA: 299036

Alcona CC: 09-001308-CH

JOYE L. GORINAC and LAVERNE

GORINAC,

Defendants/Counter

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1543

_____________________________ S TEPHANIE R OBERTSON N ATIONS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circui t Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. March 1, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , W INSOR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 21 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. DWAYNE BUFORD REED, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-5179 (D.C. No. 98-CV-70-B) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Reed, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma p auperis, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the districtcourt’s dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Reed was convicted of various federal offenses in connection with a 1993 attempted robbery of a federally-insured credit union. His convictio ns were affirmed on direct- 2 -

appeal, see United States v. Davis , 40 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir. 1994), and certiorari review was denied on March 20, 1995. On January 26 , 1998, he filed the instant § 2255 motion challenging his conviction under 18 U .S.C. § 924(c)(1) for insufficient evidence and because the jury instruct ions did not conform to Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995). These issues were not raise d in his direct appeal. The district court denied the motion as fi led beyond the one-year limitation period pursuant to § 2255 and United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997). See R. doc. 106. On appeal, Mr. Reed argues that the one-year limitation period should run from the Supreme Court’s decision in Muscarello v. United States , 118 S. Ct. 1911 (1998), because that decision clarified the me aning of “carry” in § 924(c) and amplified Bailey . See § 2255(3). He also seems to argue that he could n ot have discovered the facts for his claims without th e guidance provided by Muscarello , an untenable assertion. As noted by the districtcourt, Muscarello did not recognize any new right and Mr. Reed’s motion p redates it by several months. See R. doc. 106 at 6. Moreover, Mr. Reed’s claims ha ve been procedurally defaulted for failure to raise them on direct appea l. See Bousley v. United States , 118 S. Ct. 1604, 1611 (1998). We therefore deny hi s application- 3 -

for a certificate of appealability. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
# Astronaut Corps, STS-4 vehicle integration test team and other personnel

S82-32201 (29 May 1982) --- Members of the JSC astronaut corps, vehicle integration test team (VITT) and other personnel pose for a photograph at the completion of a countdown demonstration test (CDDT) at Launch Pad 39A, Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The participants are, from the left, Wilbur J. Etbauer, engineer with the VITT; mission specialist-astronaut James D. Van Hoften; Terri Stanford, engineer from JSC's flight operations directorate; mission specialist-astronaut Steven A. Hawley; astronaut Richard N. Richards; astronaut Michael J. Smith; Richard W. Nygren, head of the VITT; mission specialist-astronaut Kathryn D. Sullivan; astronaut Henry W. Hartsfield Jr., STS-4 pilot; Mark Haynes, a co-op student participating with the VITT; astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly II, STS-4 commander; and astronaut Donald E. Williams. Photo credit: NASA

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s82-32201/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJune 14, 1982ProducerJSCSize1919x1267pxPIA NumberS82-32201The 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:								  								Jul 14, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAYAKANTH BALASUBRAMANIAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 12-73339

Agency No. A200-883-652

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jayakanth Balasubramanian, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-73339 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations 

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on an inconsistency as to alleged harm against Balasubramanian’s family, 

and the omission from Balasubramanian’s asylum application of his uncle’s 

candidacy and Balasubramanian’s personal harm. See id. at 1048 (adverse 

credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances); see also 

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the 

applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility 

finding.”). Balasubramanian’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See 

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible 

testimony, in this case, Balasubramanian’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Balasubramanian’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony the agency found not credible, and Balasubramanian does not point to 

any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he 
3 12-73339 

would be tortured if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.