alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 
  





 
 CONFIDENTIAL 

March 26, 2020 
 Pay Change Memo 

Dear Bryce, 
 Effective 3/16/2020, you have agreed to reduce
your base compensation in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Your base pay for the remainder for 2020 will be $45,000. Below you will find details of this change: 
  

					
	 Title
	  	 	CEO	 
	 Current Base Salary
	  	$	350,000.00	 
	 Effective as of 3/16/2020
	  	$	45,000.00	 

 This memo only affects your base pay for 2020. You will be paid in accordance with TaskUs’ standard payroll practices and
subject to all withholdings and deductions as required by law. All other terms and conditions of your employment remain the same. 
 I have read and
understand the provisions of this memo. 
 Agreed to and accepted by: 
  

					
	 /s/ Bryce Maddock
	 	 	 	 3/27/2020

	Bryce Maddock	 		 	Date
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA, Partner Decide to Conclude SOFIA Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RQ1SaF2KDg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-partner-decide-to-conclude-sofia-mission\/\">NASA, Partner Decide to Conclude SOFIA Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/nasa-partner-decide-to-conclude-sofia-mission\/embed\/#?secret=RQ1SaF2KDg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA, Partner Decide to Conclude SOFIA Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RQ1SaF2KDg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/sofiaoversierra.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ezell Roberts, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03963-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/27/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8668 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8668 Filed 11/07/17 Page 2 of 2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2408

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT

To adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Montana National For5 ests Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004’’.
2

S 2408 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) FORESTS.—The term ‘‘Forests’’ means the 

4 Helena National Forest, Lolo National Forest, and 

5 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in the State 

6 of Montana. 

7 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means—

8 (A) the map entitled ‘‘Helena National 

9 Forest Boundary Adjustment Northern Region, 

10 USDA Forest Service’’ and dated September 

11 13, 2004; 

12 (B) the map entitled ‘‘Lolo National For13 est Boundary Adjustment Northern Region, 

14 USDA Forest Service’’ and dated September 

15 13, 2004; and 

16 (C) the map entitled ‘‘Deerlodge National 

17 Forest Boundary Adjustment Northern Region 

18 USDA Forest Service’’ and dated September 

19 13, 2004. 

20 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

21 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

22 SEC. 3. HELENA, LOLO, AND BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NA23 TIONAL FORESTS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries of the Forests are 

25 modified as depicted on the maps. 

26 (b) MAPS.— 
3

S 2408 RFH 

1 (1) AVAILABILITY.—The maps shall be on file 

2 and available for public inspection in— 

3 (A) the Office of the Chief of the Forest 

4 Service; and 

5 (B) the office of the Regional Forester, 

6 Missoula, Montana. 

7 (2) CORRECTION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary 

8 may make technical corrections to the maps. 

9 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—Any land or interest in land 

10 acquired within the boundaries of the Forests for National 

11 Forest System purposes shall be managed in accordance 

12 with—

13 (1) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known 

14 as the ‘‘Weeks Law’’) (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and 

15 (2) the laws (including regulations) applicable 

16 to the National Forest System. 

17 (d) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

18 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

19 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–9), the boundaries of 

20 the Forests, as adjusted under subsection (a), shall be 

21 considered to be the boundaries of the Forests as of Janu22 ary 1, 1965. 

23 (e) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act limits the author24 ity of the Secretary to adjust the boundaries of the Forests 
4

S 2408 RFH 

1 under section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 

2 521).

Passed the Senate October 10, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2107 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2107

 To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health 
                    courts through fiscal year 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 24, 2004

 Mr. DeWine (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Domenici) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize an annual appropriation of $10,000,000 for mental health 
                    courts through fiscal year 2009.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 1001(a)(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)(20)) is amended by striking 
``fiscal years 2001 through 2004'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2004 
through 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2108

___________

GLENN GATES; DONNA GATES, H/W,

ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES

AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

v.

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY; MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC, ;

ROHM AND HAAS CHEMICALS LLC;

HUNTSMAN; HUNTSMAN POLYURETHANES;

MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Glenn Gates, Donna Gates,

Appellants

_____________________________ 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_____________________________

It appears that the address and firm information listed for Louis C. Ricciardi, Esq. 

on the precedential opinion filed in this case on August 25, 2011 is incorrect. 

Accordingly, it is hereby O R D E R E D that the opinion is hereby amended to reflect the 

correct information as follows:

LOUIS C. RICCIARDI, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)

Law Office of Louis C. Ricciardi, P.C.

1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 200

Philadelphia, PA, 19102

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: September 6, 2011
cc: Aaron J. Friewald, Esq.

 Louis C. Ricciardi, Esq.

Nilam A. Sanghvi, Esq.

Samuel W. Silver, Esq.

Carl A. Solano, Esq.

Ralph G. Wellington, Esq.
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 25, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

129564-67 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129569-72 & (70) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JOEANN BATES, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129564-67 COA: 252022, 252047, 252792, and 252793 DR. SIDNEY GILBERT, Wayne CC: 03-308969-NH Defendant-Appellee, and

D&R OPTICAL CORPORATION, d/b/a HEALTH CENTER OPTICAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

JOEANN BATES, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 129569-72 COA: 252022, 252047, 252792, and 252793 DR. SIDNEY GILBERT, Wayne CC: 03-308969-NH Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, and

D&R OPTICAL CORPORATION, d/b/a HEALTH CENTER OPTICAL, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e applications for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered. We direct the Cl erk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applications or take other pere mptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral_______________________________________ __ 2

argument, the parties shall address whethe r the requirements of MCL 600.2912d(1)(a)-(d) are satisfied if: (1) a plain tiff files a single affidavit of me rit that is signed by a health professional who plaintiff’s counsel reas onably believes is qualified under MCL 600.2169 to address the standard of care, but who is not also qualified to address causation; or (2) a plaintiff files a single affi davit of merit that is signed by a health professional who plain tiff’s counsel reasonably believes is qualified under § 2169 to address causation, but who is not also qualifie d to address the standard of care. The parties shall also address whether § 2912d(1) permits or requires a plaintiff to file multiple affidavits, signed by different health professiona ls, when a single health professional is not qualified under § 2169 to te stify about both the standard of care and causation. The parties may file supplemental br iefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in their application papers.

d1018 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.

October 25, 2006

Clerk
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                    RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.
               STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE,
                      BASIC and DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   ($ in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  For the Six Months Ended    For the Quarter Ended
                                                       June 30, 1998              June 30, 1998
                                                 --------------------------- -------------------------
<S>                                              <C>                         <C>      
Net Income                                               $  22,693                 $  13,112

Net Income per common share - basic (1)                       0.98                      0.57

Net income per common share - diluted (2)                     0.97                      0.56
</TABLE>


1)       The number of common shares outstanding used to compute net income per
         share - basic was 23,084,986 for the six months ended June 30, 1998,
         and 23,102,831 for the quarter ended June 30, 1998.

2)       Diluted earnings per share for the six months and the quarter ended
         June 30, 1998, was calculated based on weighted average shares
         outstanding of 23,464,004 and 23,511,620, respectively, which assumes
         the exercise of options covering 1,844,555 shares and computes
         incremental shares using the treasury stock method.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1996
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF G&W FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE 1996 FIRST
QUARTER REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,327,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,737,670
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,827,242
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,853,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,551,374)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,853,775
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               502,975
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               937,670
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             419,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (892,551)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (892,551)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (892,551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT'S COMMON STOCK IS HELD BY THE PARENT COMPANY AND IS NOT PUBLICLY
TRADED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 12, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LUCIANO P. GUERRA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES JANECKA, Warden; GARY

K. KING, New Mexico Attorney

General,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-2167

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00734-LH-CG)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on Luciano P. Guerra’s pro se request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Guerra seeks a COA so he can appeal the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Because Guerra has not “made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2), this court denies his

request for a COA and dismisses this appeal.

A jury convicted Guerra in New Mexico state court on one count of first

degree murder. After exhausting his state court remedies, Guerra filed the instant

§ 2254 habeas petition raising the following three claims: (1) counsel failed to

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 1 
investigate and present an intoxication defense; (2) his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence: and (3) he was entitled to a jury instruction on

his theory of self-defense. The district court resolved these claims on the merits,

concluding as follows: (1) counsel’s strategic choice to advance a self-defense

theory, instead of an intoxication defense, was not unreasonable; (2) there was

sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the jury was provided with a

self-defense instruction. In his brief on appeal and request for a COA, Guerra

does not challenge any of the district court’s conclusions summarized above. 

Instead, he raises two claims not advanced below. First, he asserts he was denied

his constitutional right to compulsory process and effective assistance of counsel

because counsel failed to: (1) object when the state called Sandy Loomis as a fact

witness and (2) call Richard Rees in support of a self-defense theory. Second, he

asserts the prosecutor committed misconduct when he claimed during closing

argument that the evidence demonstrated the victim’s arm was pinned over his

head. This court does not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. 

Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2009).

Because Guerra has not asked for a COA as to the issues he raised below,

and because this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,

we DENY his request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (holding that the grant of a COA is a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 2 
jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the dismissal of a § 2254 petition).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2167 Document: 01019429530 Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Page: 3
#### MARGARET J. LANE v. GEORGE ACCOMANDO.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
Exhibit 10.4.48Board of Directors CompensationOn September 6, 2007 the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors and the Board ofDirectors approved changes in the method of calculation of director compensation received in theform of restricted stock under the Company’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Previously directorsreceived a grant of restricted stock on November 1 of each year. During 2007, the CompensationCommittee established regularly scheduled quarterly dates for all awards made under the Long TermIncentive Plan. Consistent with this policy, the award date for grants to directors was changed toNovember 15, or if later, one week following the earnings announcement for the Company’s fiscalquarter ended September 30.The value of the grant of restricted stock received as part of each non-employee director’sretainer equals as closely as possible, subject to rounding to prevent issuance of fractionalshares, the annual cash retainer paid to non-employee directors (currently $41,500 for each periodbeginning November 1 through and including the following October 31). Previously, the number ofshares awarded was calculated based upon the average closing price for the Company’s stock for thefour weeks ending prior to November 1 of each year. Starting in 2007, the number of shares awardedwill be calculated based upon the closing price for the Company’s stock on the award date.
#### William Fehler *v.*James G. Page.

Personal Property — Warranty—Limitation.

Where *personal*property is retained for five years, without complaint, if there was a warranty at the time of the sale of same, the law pre-. sumes that the property was as warranted o he.

APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

May 23, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

The fact that the jack was lying down at the time of the sale, there being no other alleged obstruction in the way furnished ,no excuse for the failure of appellant then to measure him, or to inspect him and ascertain his true height.

Moreover it appears that more than six years had elapsed from the date of the sale until the answer was filed,, during all of which time no dissatisfaction was manifested with his purchase by appellant, nor unwillingness’ to retain him, and it must be presumed *389be used the jack for the purpose for which he purchased him, and realized gains from his services. Nor is it alleged in the original, or amended answer that he was induced by any subsequent representations true, or false, of the seller, to retain the jack for so great a lenght of time, without complaint, if there was a warranty the law presumes he was such as he was warranted to be. 3 Starkie 1605-6.

Lawless, *for appellant.*

*Barnett*& Edwards, *for appellee.*

The period which had elapsed between the sale and the filing of the answer, in which the first complaint of the breach of warranty is made, is shown by the pleadings. The defense set- up in the answer was therefore insufficient, and the demurrer properly sustained. Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*