alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter Agreement for Jeanmarie Cooney



 Exhibit 10.18 
  
 

 
  
  
 May 30, 2004 
  
  
 Jeanmarie Cooney 
 7 Sylvan Way 
 Parsippany, NJ 07054 
  
 Dear Jeanmarie, 
  
 This letter will confirm our understanding regarding severance. Per Jackson Hewitt Tax Service,
Inc.’s (the “Company”) standard policy, this letter is not intended nor should it be considered as an employment contract for a definite or indefinite period of time. As you know, employment with the Company is at will, and either you
or the Company may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause. If however, you are terminated without cause by the Company, you will receive severance equal to one times your then base salary, subject to you executing a release of
claims in the form determined by the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at any time during your employment, in the event you are terminated without cause by the Company, within twelve months following a change in control of the Company, you
will receive severance equal to two times your then base salary, subject to you executing a release of claims in the form determined by the Company. This letter shall be effective as of and contingent upon the consummation of the Company’s
initial public offering. 
  
  
 Sincerely, 
  
  
 /s/    Mike Lister 
  
  

	Cc:	Peter Karpiak
Order entered May 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00313-CR

No. 05-20-00316-CR

No. 05-20-00317-CR

HARVEY LEWIS SIMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-83735-2018 (counts 1, 10 & 7)

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Robyn Rodriguez’s April 30, 2020 request 

for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. On March 18, 2020, the 

district court notified us that a timely motion for new trial had been filed. Thus, the 

reporter’s record is due June 26, 2020. In light of this, we DENY Ms. Rodriguez’s 

request as premature.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,794
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                       849
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,258
<PP&E>                                           7,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                     403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,712
<SALES>                                         24,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,316
<CGS>                                           15,029
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     41
<INCOME-TAX>                                        73
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (32)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (713)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Philip Werthman, Appellant, *v.*Max Blatt and Others, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 10, 1926.

Bills and notes — holder in due course — plaintiff, assignee of promissory note made by defendant payable to partnership and transferred to plaintiff’s assignor without infirmities, is legal holder thereof — payment to copartner who had parted with possession did not discharge debt.

Plaintiff, assignee of a promissory note made by the defendant and payable to the members of a partnership, which by the terms of a partnership dissolution agreement was transferred to plaintiff’s assignor, without infirmities, is the legal holder thereof and is entitled to recover thereon. Payment by the defendant to one of the partners, who had parted with possession of the note, did not discharge the debt.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, with a judge and jury, dismissing the complaint.

*E. Lloyd Meyer,*for the appellant.

*Abraham A. Pariser,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

Assuming, as established, for the jury so found, that the plaintiff is only an assignee of the note in suit, no evidence *584was presented by defendant to defeat his claim and a verdict should have been directed in his favor. The court below misinterpreted the dissolution agreement between the partners who are the payees of the note of which the defendant is the maker and the plaintiff the owner. By the terms of that agreement the note in suit was transferred to plaintiff’s assignor, Benjamin Werthman. The other partner, Stepensky, lost all interest in it and had no authority to receive payment therefor. Payment by the defendant to the said Stepensky who had parted with possession of the note, did not extinguish the debt. If the defendant made such payment mistakenly his remedy is against Stepensky for its return. The plaintiff here is the holder of the note. No infirmities in it have been established nor has he been paid. That the note was given to plaintiff without consideration as defendant claimed and probably established, is no bar to recovery so long as plaintiff has the legal title.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment ordered in favor of plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen DeVries,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04255-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 11/27/2017, 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: December 8, 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 9343 Filed 12/15/17 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 9343 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"International and Space Law","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZGEENrqTVR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/international-and-space-law\/\">International and Space Law<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/organizations\/international-and-space-law\/embed\/#?secret=ZGEENrqTVR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International and Space Law” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ZGEENrqTVR\" 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"}
#### R. H. Rowsseau v. J. F. Sheckler.

Judgments — Final Judgment — Order Sustaining Attachment.

An order of court authorizing tbe plaintiff to withdraw the proceeds of the attached property from the hands of the officers, is in effect to sustain the attachment, and is a final judgment so far as the order of attachment is concerned.

*283Attachment — Failure to Execute Bond — Proceeds Paid to Plaintiff.

It is error to pay over to the plaintiff the proceeds of attached property without the execution of the bond required by section 440 of the .Civil Code.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

April 29, 1871.

*Demits & Hubble, for appellant.*

*Bar & Goodloe, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The order of court authorizing 'the plaintiff to withdraw the proceeds of the attached property from the hands of the officer, and thereby to put it out of the control of the court, was in effect to sustain the attachment. Section 250 of the Civil Code provides, that “If judgment is rendered for the plaintiff, the court shall apply in satisfaction thereof, the proceeds arising from the sales of perishable property, etc.” This order applied to the payment of the appellee’s claim the proceeds of attached personal property. It is true no personal judgment was rendered against Rowsseau who was not before the court but by the services of summons the claim of Sheckler was distinctly recognized and paid.” He sought no further relief, and could be entitled to none in this proceeding. “Hence the case was finally disposed of so far as the order of attachment was concerned, and this appeal is properly prosecuted.”

As the property was sold and the proceeds paid over to the appellee without the execution of the bond required by section 440 of the Civil Code, the proceeding is erroneous.

The order applying the proceeds of said attached property to the payment of 'Sheckler’s claim is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. ■
H. Res. 269

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 22, 1997.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution

(H.J. Res. 97) making further continuing appropriations for

the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The joint

resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
{"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 TV to Broadcast U.S. Cargo Ship Departure from Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h8ljyPpoZq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-to-broadcast-u-s-cargo-ship-departure-from-space-station\/\">NASA TV to Broadcast U.S. Cargo Ship Departure from Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-tv-to-broadcast-u-s-cargo-ship-departure-from-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=h8ljyPpoZq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA TV to Broadcast U.S. Cargo Ship Departure from Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"h8ljyPpoZq\" 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\/2016\/06\/25634985304_d6c7f6ee35_o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KEVIN EARL TOOKS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 24-6029 

(D.C. No. 5:22-CR-00239-JD-4) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before EID, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver, Kevin Earl Tooks 

pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute fentanyl, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison, which 

was at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. 

Mr. Tooks appealed, and the government now moves to enforce the appeal 

waiver. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) 

(per curiam). In response, Mr. Tooks “acknowledges that his appeal waiver is 

enforceable under the standard set out in United States v. Hahn.” Resp. at 1. 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 25, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-6029 Document: 010111084896 Date Filed: 07/25/2024 Page: 1
2 

Based on Mr. Tooks’s concession, and our application and interpretation of 

Hahn, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss 

this appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

Appellate Case: 24-6029 Document: 010111084896 Date Filed: 07/25/2024 Page: 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

d0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

141398

MARK CHABAN, P.C., Successor of Law Office of Mark Chaban, Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

TINDALL & COMPANY, P.C., Intervening Appellant,

v SC: 141398 COA: 282481 Wayne CC: 07-709097-AV SHIRLEY GETSINGER, JOSEPH P. BUTTIGLIERI, THEODORE P. PANARETOS, and KEMP, KLEIN, UMPHREY, ENDELMAN & MAY, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2010 order 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.

Z AHRA , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
9230.

#### Robinson *v.*Bothwell Grocery Company.

Decided March 14, 1918.

Certiorari; from Richmond superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. September 8, 1917.

*Isaac 8. Peebles Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Oswell B, Hve, Alexander & Lee,*contra.

Duke, J.

1. A bill of sale of personalty to secure a debt, where the prin- , cipal sum does not exceed one hundred dollars, may be foreclosed in the same manner as mortgages on personal property are foreclosed, and the mortgagor may defend in the same manner as is now provided by law as to defenses to foreclosures of mortgages. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3298 and 3299.

*(a)*Where there is a variance between the amount stated in the bill of sale and the amount stated in the affidavit of foreclosure, the foreclosure is not void for this reason. If the amount claimed in the affidavit be too large, the defendant of an opposing creditor can contest the amount and have it reduced. *Vance*v. Roberts, 86 *Ga.*457 (4) (12 S. E. 653).

2. The answer of the magistrate trying the ease, from whose court the cause was carried up, did not admit the truth of the petition for certiorari; and the judge of the superior court, being bound by the untraversed answer, did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
{"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 Television to Air Return of Three International Space Station Crew Members","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hKr9tdHjoz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-return-of-three-international-space-station-crew-members\/\">NASA Television to Air Return of Three International Space Station Crew Members<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-television-to-air-return-of-three-international-space-station-crew-members\/embed\/#?secret=hKr9tdHjoz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Television to Air Return of Three International Space Station Crew Members” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hKr9tdHjoz\" 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\/2017\/08\/exp52-jpg.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}