alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1
 Summary of
Fiscal 2012 Management Incentive Plan
for Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc.
     Target PayoutOpportunity
    
    
    PerformanceExecutive Officer
    
    (as a % of Base Salary)
    
    
    MeasuresChief Executive Officer
    
    
    75%
    
    
    65% based on profit before tax35% based on net sales*Chief Accounting Officer
    
    
    30%
    
    
    50% based on profit before tax30% based on net sales*20% based on certain components of the individuals job functionOther Executive Officers
    
    
    50%
    
    
    50% based on profit before tax30% based on net sales*20% based on certain components of the individuals job function
 *
    
    Executive officers are not eligible for any payout based on the net sales
performance measure unless the performance measure for profit before tax has been
achieved.
### §1076. Sources of funds

Loans made by eligible lenders in accordance with this part shall be insurable by the Secretary whether made from funds fully owned by the lender or from funds held by the lender in a trust or similar capacity and available for such loans.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §426, as added Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1361.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1076, Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, §426, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1238; Pub. L. 94–482, title I, §127(a), Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2106; Pub. L. 96–374, title XIII, §1391(a)(1), Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1503, related to insurability of loans made from funds owned by lender or held by lender in trust, prior to the general revision of this part by Pub. L. 99–498.
(No. 74-CC-164

#### Grand Spaulding Dodge, Inc. Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 8, 1974.*

Grand Spaulding Dodge, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Edward L. S. Arkema, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.317 Bottles to be used for display purposes.

Empty liquor bottles may be brought into the United States and may be furnished to liquor dealers for display purposes, provided each bottle is marked to show that it is to be used for such purpose. Any paper strip used to seal the bottle shall be of solid color and without design or printing, except that a border or a design, formed entirely of the legend “not genuine—for display purposes only” is permissible. Records shall be kept of the receipt and disposition of such bottles, showing the names and addresses of consignees, dates of shipment, and size, quantity, and description of bottles.
#### § 31.43 States, political subdivisions of States, or the District of Columbia.

A State, a political subdivision of a State, or the District of Columbia, that engages in the business of selling, or offering for sale, distilled spirits, wines, or beer is not exempt from the requirements of this part. However, no such governmental entity shall be required to register more than once as a retail dealer in liquors regardless of the number of locations at which the entity carries on business as a retail dealer in liquors. Any such governmental entity that has properly registered as a wholesale dealer at its principal office, and that has properly registered once as a retail dealer in liquors or beer, is not required to register again at its retail stores by reason of the sale of distilled spirits, wines, or beer at any of those locations to dealers qualified to do business as a dealer within the jurisdiction of that governmental entity.

(26 U.S.C. 5121)
#### § 24.280 General.

Wine may be removed for transfer in bond, from one bonded wine premises to another bonded wine premises or to a distilled spirits plant. For bulk wine transferred in bond between adjacent or contiguous bonded wine premises or to an adjacent or contiguous distilled spirits plant, an accurately calibrated tank for measuring the wine is required on at least one of the premises. The volume of wine transferred will be recorded to the nearest whole gallon, five-tenths gallon being converted to the next full gallon.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1380, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5362))
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 3,245

 3,361

 3,992

 3,526

 3,846

 5,118

 3,731

 2,548

 1,869

 1,893

 2,181

 2,660

 3,349

 3,435

 3,387

 3,654

 5,617

 5,015

 3,888

 3,149

 2,731

 2,686

 3,078

 3,034

 3,165

 2,707

 3,141

 3,043

 3,324

 3,457

 1,056

 1,022

 1,046

 1,063

 994

 984

 1,053

 901

 581

 755

 847

 873

 960

 967

 975

 947

 994

 1,205

 1,220

 1,071

 1,069

 1,098

 1,150

 1,175

 1,182

 1,123

 1,125

 1,123

 1,073

 1,088

 1,694

 1,719

 1,959

 1,864

 1,978

 2,588

 2,140

 1,707

 1,255

 1,198

 1,304

 1,382

 1,612

 1,616

 1,585

 1,649

 2,445

 2,530

 2,084

 1,875

 1,736

 1,710

 1,736

 1,706

 1,736

 1,551

 1,636

 1,630

 1,718

 1,734

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 8, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY 

AVG

MEAN

 26,986

 27,021

 27,253

 26,884

 26,392

 26,513

 26,301

 25,789

 25,299

 24,813

 24,474

 24,224

 24,153

 24,016

 23,907

 23,837

 24,323

 24,989

 25,095

 24,382

 23,978

 23,981

 24,462

 24,970

 25,402

 25,571

 25,595

 25,609

 25,742

 25,827

 1,928

 1,930

 1,947

 1,920

 1,885

 1,894

 1,879

 1,842

 1,807

 1,772

 1,748

 1,730

 1,725

 1,715

 1,708

 1,703

 1,737

 1,785

 1,793

 1,742

 1,713

 1,713

 1,747

 1,784

 1,814

 1,827

 1,828

 1,829

 1,839

 1,845

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 1,887

 2,063

 1,739

 1,138

 771

 1,064

 874

 1,399

 1,556

 1,907

 2,703

 3,791

 3,407

 2,933

 2,805

 2,511

 1,522

 1,531

 1,358

 1,763

 1,576

 1,797

 1,472

 1,799

 1,994

 2,046

 2,047

 2,041

 1,551

 1,193

 1,089

 292

 263

 233

 205

 196

 191

 187

 182

 184

 178

 254

 242

 271

 282

 287

 253

 209

 213

 212

 193

 210

 204

 207

 193

 204

 196

 204

 198

 190

 187

 190

 761

 801

 655

 520

 305

 297

 288

 325

 389

 461

 697

 966

 922

 894

 833

 690

 514

 395

 382

 385

 394

 423

 405

 478

 491

 514

 558

 536

 438

 393

 359

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 7,904

 8,122

 8,276

 8,326

 8,241

 8,170

 8,070

 7,837

 7,422

 7,316

 7,398

 7,687

 7,994

 8,281

 8,353

 8,242

 8,101

 7,976

 8,053

 8,141

 8,247

 8,345

 8,361

 8,378

 8,172

 7,720

 7,356

 6,998

 6,603

 6,306

 6,151

 565

 580

 591

 595

 589

 584

 576

 560

 530

 523

 528

 549

 571

 592

 597

 589

 579

 570

 575

 582

 589

 596

 597

 598

 584

 551

 525

 500

 472

 450

 439

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### Scottish-American Mortgage Company, appellee, v. W. G. Nye et al., appellants.

Filed June 8, 1899.

No. 8935.

1. Judicial Sales: Appraisement: Objections. Objections to the appraisement of properly for the purpose of judicial sale must be made in the district court prior to the sale.

2. -: Deputy Siieriee. A deputy sheriff may perform any act for his principal in making a foreclosure sale.

3. -: Appraisement. But one appraisement of real estate is required to be made until the property has been twice advertised and twice offered for sale.

Appeal from the district court of Buffalo county. Heard' below before Greene, J.

*Affirmed..*

*Fred A. Nye,*for appellants.

*Dry den & Main, contra.*

Noryal, J.

A decree foreclosing a real estate mortgage was entered in this cause in the district court of Buffalo county, the properly was sold thereunder by the sheriff and the sale confirmed, and defendants have prosecuted an appeal from the order of confirmation, urging as reasons why the sale should not be confirmed: First, that the appraisers were summoned and sworn by the sheriff while his deputy acted for him in making the appraisement; and second, that the appraisement was made one year prior to the sale.

The first objection urged against the confirmation can*662not be sustained, since it was urged in the trial court for the first time after the sale had taken place. It is the settled law of this state that objections to the appraisement of property for the purpose of judicial sale must be made prior to the sale. *(Ecklund v. Willis,*42 Neb. 737; *Burkett v. Clark,*46 Neb. 466; *Overall v. McShane,*49 Neb. 64.) Moreover, the appraisement was not vitiated by reason that the deputy sheriff assisted in making the same. *(Nebraska Loan & Building Ass’n v. Marshall,*51 Neb. 534; *Hamer v. McKinley-Lanning Loan*& *Trust Co.,*52 Neb. 705.) If a deputy may act for his principal in making judicial sales, as this court has held in the cases cited, it logically follows that he may perform any act or acts necessary in making such sales, including the appraisement of property. The deputy acts for and in behalf of his principal, and the official acts of the deputy are, in legal effect, those of his principal. If a deputy sheriff assists in appraising property under a decree of foreclosure, he alone, and not his principal, must make the sale, is the argument advanced by defendants’ counsel. ■ If this be true, then if after a deputy sheriff has made an appraisement he should resign or die, his principal could not go on and complete the sale. We cannot yield assent to such a doctrine, but the better rule is that any act necessary to make a legal sale under a decree of foreclosure may be performed by a deputy sheriff, and the remainder of the acts may be discharged by the sheriff himself.

The appraisement was made more than a year prior to the sale, but this alone did not affect the validity of the sale. The appraisement had been made under a former order of sale, and being valid, there was no authority for making a new appraisement until the property had been twice offered for sale. *(Burkett v. Clark,*46 Neb. 466.) The order assailed is

¿Vffiümed,
[KPMG LETTERHEAD]
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
2400 First Indiana Plaza
135 North Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN  46204-2452



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
First Indiana Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
on Form S-8 of First Indiana Corporation of our report dated January 21,
1997, except note 17, which is as of February 20, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of First Indiana Corporation as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of First Indiana Corporation.

/s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 24, 1997
### Boyd, Christopher From: Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Kenny, Rogers, Bob [Bob.Rogers@shelbycountytn.gov] Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:13AM Kenny.Monroe@kimley-horn.com Gray, Carter; Boyd, Christopher; Zerwekh, Tyler; Srivastava, Pragati New VMT model data

This is to follow up on avoicemaillleftjust afew minutes ago. Though I have been unable to reach anyone at Region 4, Ifeel certain itwould be recommended we use the newestVMT data for calculating the on-road emissions for our maintenance plan analysis. Please work on preparing that information forthe two analysis years we don't already have -2012 and 2027. Ithink it is important here to give some background information on the situation. From EPA guidance on MVEBs for SIPs: 40CFR 93.122(a)(6) requires thatthe MOBILE inputs used in the conformityanalysis be consistent with the SIP. SIP MVEB and regional emissions analysis methodologies should be as consistent as possible to ensure "apples to apples" emissions comparisons in the conformitydetermination. When we began working on the mobile source emissions estimates forthe SIP, we were supplied VMT data which at thattime was currentand is, in fact, the data used in the most current, approved conformity determination. While we have been working on the SIP, the MPO has been moving forward on their required periodic revision ofthe local LRTP. Recently, the MPO released the draftconformity determination portion ofthat plan. A comparison of mobile emissions from ourSIP analysis to those ofthe conformitydetermination showed significant differences. Conversations between ouroffice and Kimley-Horn revealed a mistake in future yearVMT byvehicle type. This mistake was consistent in both the SIP and the conformityanalysis and has been addressed in both. This did not resolve the differences. It was found the difference is because the modelingforthe upcoming LRTP includes a newanalysis ofVMT by vehicle type that shows differences in all vehicle types, but a marked increase in HD diesel miles compared to the previous model. This new VMT model was only recently approved by TOOT. A review shows we don't expect any problems using eitherone as a basis, butwe feel that since this new data is available and is being incorporated into the draft LRTP renewal, we should be using itto set the MVEB. Feel free to call ifyou have any questions or concerns. Bob Rogers, Manager Pollution Control Shelby County Health Department 814Jefferson Ave. MemphisTN 38105 (901)222-9599

1
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Martin Cooper, Relator, v. Joseph Johnson, as Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

Writ dismissed and proceedings dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 225

 242

 253

 272

 287

 274

 275

 277

 263

 278

 304

 294

 297

 333

 393

 504

 588

 504

 442

 459

 418

 455

 382

 392

 399

 402

 452

 531

 585

 585

 210

 210

 202

 202

 204

 202

 208

 200

 208

 203

 205

 206

 208

 209

 219

 241

 241

 243

 237

 241

 236

 242

 240

 233

 226

 232

 235

 247

 242

 259

 215

 216

 217

 220

 223

 220

 226

 226

 225

 226

 225

 226

 230

 241

 271

 318

 345

 324

 296

 304

 298

 309

 293

 290

 277

 276

 293

 320

 345

 363

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 12, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,012

 3,024

 3,035

 3,041

 3,048

 3,052

 3,060

 3,069

 3,075

 3,081

 3,087

 3,096

 3,109

 3,136

 3,192

 3,294

 3,422

 3,526

 3,599

 3,683

 3,755

 3,838

 3,906

 3,970

 4,022

 4,072

 4,135

 4,214

 4,288

 4,333

 215

 216

 217

 217

 218

 218

 219

 219

 220

 220

 221

 221

 222

 224

 228

 235

 244

 252

 257

 263

 268

 274

 279

 284

 287

 291

 295

 301

 306

 310

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of earnings and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                                         $ 1,751 
<SECURITIES>                                    16,155 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,961 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       728     
<INVENTORY>                                     11,857 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,144 
<PP&E>                                          19,003 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,792 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,560 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,031 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           529 
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,709 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,560 
<SALES>                                         18,443 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,443 
<CGS>                                           10,210 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,541 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    47 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,206 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.55)
        


</TABLE>
### Part A—Miscellaneous Provisions
#### Sol Katzenstein, Respondent, v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Present—-Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

§ 40.491 Persons required to qualify. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, every person who engages in the processing of tobacco must first qualify for and receive a permit as a manufacturer of processed tobacco in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
( b ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) A person who engages in the processing of tobacco solely for his own personal use or consumption and not for sale or transfer to another person is not engaged in the manufacture of processed tobacco for purposes of this part and, accordingly, is not required to qualify as a manufacturer of processed tobacco.
( 2 ) Any person who holds a TTB permit for the manufacture of tobacco products is thereby authorized to process tobacco solely for use in the manufacture of tobacco products under that permit, so long as the processed tobacco is not removed from the factory for any purpose other than destruction. Such a manufacturer is not required to qualify under this subpart as a manufacturer of processed tobacco.
( 3 ) Any person that holds a TTB permit for the manufacture of tobacco products and that removes processed tobacco from the factory must apply for authorization to engage in that activity, when required to do so under § 40.47.
[T.D. TTB-78, 74 FR 29410, June 22, 2009, as amended by T.D. TTB-104, 77 FR 37304, June 21, 2012]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5479 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5479

           To protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 18, 2019

 Mr. Fortenberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To protect Americans with pre-existing conditions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    No American shall be denied health insurance due to pre-existing 
conditions.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear by T.D. ATF-437, 66 FR 5478, 5479, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 25.183 Determination of quantity transferred.

The shipping brewer shall determine the quantity of beer shipped at the time of removal from the consignor brewery, and the receiving brewer shall determine the quantity of beer received at the time of receipt at the consignee brewery. The brewer shall equip the consignor and consignee breweries with suitable measuring devices to allow accurate determination of the quantities of beer to be shipped and received in bulk conveyances.

(Sec 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1389, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5414))
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

I N RE: VERONICA CHAVEZ VARA
,
Relator

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 3

- 00 1 91

- CV

A

N ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Veronica Chavez Vara, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the

Honorable Guadalupe Rivera, presiding judge assigned in trial cause number 2012DCM10912,
styled Veronica Vara v. Mark Vara , pending in the 388 th District Court of El Paso, County,

Texas

. 1 Relator requests this Court to order Respondent to vacate the order titled, “Order
Dismissing 3 rd Amended Petition for Clarification and Enforcement of the Property Division of
the Original Decree of Divorce ,” which was signed and entered on June 22, 2023.
Relator has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of a prefiling order,
prohibiting her from filing “ any litigation relating to marital property provisions of the [ parties’ ]

1 We take judicial notice of the order of assignment of Judge Guadalupe Rivera to preside in the trial court in this underlying cause by the presiding judge of the Sixth Administrative Judi cial Region of Texas . The order of assignment is included in the record of a companion case pending in this Court in Cause No. 08

- 23

- 00190

- CV. We decide both on this same date.2 O riginal D ecree of D ivorce
, ” 2 pursuant to Sections 11.101 and 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code.
The clerk of this Court may not file an original proceeding or other claim presented by a
vexatious litigant who is subject to a prefiling order unless the litigant firs t obtains an order from
the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing. See id

. § 11.103(a)

. Here, relator

did not support her petition for writ of mandamus with an order from an appropriate administrative
judge granting relator permissio n to proceed with the filing. See id. § 11.102 . Accordingly, we
dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. See id . § 11.103(a)

.

GINA M. PALAFOX
, Justice
July 26 , 2023

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

2 See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . § 11.101(a) ; Texas Office of Court Administration, Vexatio us Litigant Order https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1456705/veronica

- vera.pdf

.