alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


March 7, 2006


 


 


Mr. Kevin Murphy


233 Raymond Road


Marlborough, MA 01752


 


Dear Kevin,


 


I very much appreciated the time we were able to spend discussing the
professional opportunity for you at Network Engines. Based on that discussion,
I have outlined the opportunity I see for you, which I believe presents a
challenging technical leadership position.


 


I would also add that many of the elements in this letter have been in
discussion for several weeks with board members and at the executive level
relative to your position and potential within the company. To that extent,
this letter confirms the support you have in the organization for this position
as well as the confidence the organization has in you.


 


Effective April 1, 2006, the following will take place:


 


	
  1)

  	
  You will be promoted to Chief Technology
  Officer for Network Engines.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2)

  	
  Your base annual salary will be increased
  to $170,000.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3)

  	
  You will receive a $50,000 retention bonus,
  $20,000 of which will be payable on October 1, 2006, with the remainder
  payable in equal sums of $15,000 on April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008
  respectively. Payment of these retention bonuses will be contingent upon your
  continued employment with Network Engines through the payable dates.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4)

  	
  You will be eligible to participate in the
  2006 Executive Bonus Program, and your incentive compensation will be
  targeted at $30,000 per annum conditional upon achieving specified corporate
  and individual goals.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5)

  	
  A stock option grant of 100,000 options
  will be made subject to approval by the Board of Directors at the upcoming March 15th
  Board Meeting.

  



 

















 


Kevin, I would very much like to have you on the executive staff and I
hope in a very tangible way this letter reinforces the high regard we have for
your ability and considerable contributions to the company. I sincerely look
forward to you joining me in leading the organization forward.


 


Sincerely,


 


	
  /s/ Gregory A. Shortell

  	
   

  



 


Gregory A. Shortell


President and CEO


Network Engines, Inc.


 


 


Accepted:


 


 


	
  /s/ Kevin Murphy

  	
   

  	
  March 7, 2006

  	
   

  
	
  Kevin Murphy

  	
   
  Date
#### Bertha Goldstein, as Executrix of Oscar D. Goldstein, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 5, 1962 after trial, upon the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $295,549. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Decedent was killed in a fall beneath defendant’s train as it was leaving the station at Yonkers, New York. He was seen running along the platform, toward the train, as it was beginning to move, but there was no direct testimony as to the actual happening of the accident. Plaintiff claimed that defendant was negligent with respect to the maintenance of the *836platform and in the operation of the train; and .both theories were submitted to the jury, which rendered a general verdict in favor of plaintiff. While there was proof that there were defects in the platform, there was a complete absence of any evidence that those defects were a proximate cause of decedent’s fall. The precise cause of the accident was left to conjecture and in our opinion the fall may be as reasonably attributed to a condition for which no liability attached as to one for which it did. On the record presented, therefore, the theory of liability based upon the presence of defects in the platform should not have been submitted to the jury *(White*v. *Lehigh Val. B. B. Co.,*220 N. Y. 131). Since one of the theories was erroneously submitted and there was merely a general verdict, the judgment must be reversed as we have no way of determining upon which theory the case was decided *(Dwarte*V. *First Westchester Nat. Bank,*5 A D 2d 1011). In any event, a new trial is required as, in our opinion, any finding of negligence based upon the operation of the train would be contrary to the weight of the evidence (cf. *Carlson*v. *Boston & Maine B. B.,*269 Mass. 60, 64; *Dolan*v. *Boston <& Maine B. B., 328*Mass. 532, 535). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000032312
<NAME> EMCEE BROADCAST PRODUCTS INC
       
      <S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,924
<SECURITIES>                                 3,584,229
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,387,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,708,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,967,569
<PP&E>                                       2,791,565
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,020,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,028,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          580,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        73,084
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,651,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,028,822
<SALES>                                      4,364,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,364,794
<CGS>                                        2,995,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,384,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (91,906)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,776
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
#### Leo Resman, appellee, v. Max Tauber Sons Absopure Ice Cream Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,309.

Action to recover damages growing out of collision between plaintiff’s automobile and defendant’s motor truck. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Francis Borrelli, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 29, 1925.

*648Joseph. O. MeKiernan, for appellant.

William C. McHenry, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

###### Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities

# AGENCY:

Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021, from 12:00 p.m. until adjourned.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 606-8322;                         *evoyatzis@neh.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning on or after April 1, 2021. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's                           ( print page 1120)                        Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated April 15, 2016.                

Dated: January 4, 2021.

Caitlin Cater,

Attorney-Advisor, National Endowment for the Humanities. 

[FR Doc. 2021-00036 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
#### PEOPLE ex rel. PARKE-DAVIS & CO. v. MILLER, Comptroller.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 14, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people oí the state oí New York, on the relation of ParkeDavis & Co., against Nathan L. Miller, Comptroller of the State of New York.

No opinion. Determination of the Comptroller confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00496

- CV
Sandra Maribel Arroyo v. Cristo Rey Garza
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CL

- 17

- 1893

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Augu st 9, 2018
§ 755.4 Limitation on claims. ( a ) *Time limitations.* A claim must be submitted within 90 days of the incident giving rise to it.
( b ) *Acts of property owner.* When the acts or omissions of the property owner, his lessee, or agent were a proximate contributing factor to the loss or damage of the property, assessments will not be made against members of the naval service in excess of the amount for which they are found to be directly responsible, *i.e.*, comparative responsibility for the loss will be the standard for determining financial responsibility.
( c ) *Only direct damages considered.* Assessment will be made only for direct physical damages to the property. Indirect, remote, or inconsequential damage will not be considered.
### §553. Terminations

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, whenever all the functions vested by law in any agency have been transferred pursuant to this chapter, each position and office the incumbent of which was authorized to receive compensation at the rates prescribed for an office or position at level II, III, IV, or V, of the Executive Schedule, shall terminate.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title XV, §1513, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2311.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.

Levels II, III, IV, and V, of the Executive Schedule, referred to in text, are set out in sections 5313, 5314, 5315, and 5316, respectively, of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 14a0852n.06
No. 13-5776
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT CASEY WI L L IAM HYLAND; ) GRAHAM PUL L EN, ) ) P lai nt iffs, ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED and ) STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF CHRI STOPHER R. BURNETTE; ) KENTUCKY MYSTI C BURNETTE , ) ) P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s, ) ) M E M O R

A N D UM OP IN ION v. ) ) HOMESERVI CES OF AMERI CA, I NC.; ) HO ME SER

VI CES OF KENT UC KY , I NC ; ) SEM ON I N REA L TO RS; ) REC TO R- HAYD ENREA L TO RS; ) RE/MA X I

NT ERN AT I ON AL , I

NC .; ) CENTURY 21 REAL

ESTATE CORP.; ) COL DWEL LBA

NKER REAL

ESTATE ) CO RP.; CO L DWE L LB AN KE R ) MCMAHAN COMPANY; RE/MAX; ) CENTURY 21 REAL

ESTATE L L C, fka ) Ce ntu ry 21 Re a l E state Cor

po ratio n; ) AL L IAN CE REA LEST AT E SE RV I CES , ) L L C, dba RE/MAX Alliance; PROPERTI ES ) EA ST, I NC ., db a Re /Max Pro pe rt ie s E a st; ) REAL OGY CORPORATI ON; RE/MAX ) OF KENTUCY/TENN ESSEE, I NC., )

) De fend ant s- App e lle e s. )

BEF ORE: CO LE, Chi e f Judg e ; N ORRI S and G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s.2

PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, the district court awarded $19,516.38 to defendant McMahan and $87,305.57 to defendants HomeServices of America, Inc., and HomeServices of Kentucky, Inc. Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed May 7, 2013. Rule 54 provides, “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs other than attorney’s fees should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). There is a presumption in favor of awarding costs. White & White, Inc. v. Am. Hosp. Supply Corp. , 786 F.2d 728, 729 (6th Cir. 1986). We give deferential review to the decision of the district court to award costs and to their amount. In 0re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig. , 481 F.3d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 2007). Among others things, federal law provides that costs may be taxed for fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts, fees for printing and witnesses, and fees for making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Plaintiffs asked that the district court defer awarding costs until the merits appeal, case number 12-5947, was resolved or, in the alternative, to refuse to award McMahan $1,293.60 in copying costs and to refuse HSA’s request for $16,579.60 in videotaping costs. The district court found that McMahan’s copying costs of 15 cents per page were reasonable. Mem. Op. at 4. As for the videotaping, the court looked to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and found that “video deposition costs are taxable.” Mem. Op. at 6. In a separate opinion, we have affirmed judgment in favor of defendants in case number 12-
5947. Burnette v. Homeservices of Am., Inc. , ___ F.3d ___ (2014). In light of our decision, we detect no error in the decision of the district court to award costs to defendants. The judgment is affirmed

.
1032.202-1 Policy. ( b ) ( 2 ) Commercial interim payments and commercial advance payments may also be made when the contract price is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial Officer Date: September 30, 2008 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
### **CHAPTER 24—PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES**
### §229a. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–78, title IX, §913(a), Oct. 22, 1999, 113 Stat. 1205

Section, act Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title IV, §416, as added Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(a) [title XI, §1127(a)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–46, related to mandatory domestic reporting pilot investigation.

#### Termination of Repeal

For termination of repeal by section 942 of Pub. L. 106–78, see Livestock Mandatory Reporting note set out under section 1635 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Termination Date of Repeal

Repeal by Pub. L. 106–78 to terminate Sept. 30, 2023, see section 942 of Pub. L. 106–78, set out in a Livestock Mandatory Reporting note under section 1635 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.119 Definitions. ( a ) *Civil Air Patrol (CAP).* A federally chartered, non-profit corporation which was designated by Congress in 1948 as a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.
( b ) *Air Force noncombat mission.* Although not defined in any statute, an Air Force noncombat mission is any mission for which the Air Force is tasked, by statute, regulation, or higher authority, which does not involve actual combat, combat operations or combat training. The Air Force, in lieu of using Air Force resources, can use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill these type missions. When performing an Air Force noncombat mission, the Civil Air Patrol is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States. In order for a mission to be a noncombat mission of the Air Force under this part, it must either: ( 1 ) Have a special Air Force mission order assigned, and, the Air Force must exercise operational control over the mission.
( 2 ) Involve a peacetime mission the Air Force is tasked to perform by higher authority which requires the expenditure of Air Force resources to accomplish, and the Air Force specifically approves the mission as a noncombat mission, and assigns the mission to the Civil Air Patrol to perform.
( c ) *CAP members.* CAP members are private citizens who volunteer their time, services, and resources to accomplish CAP objectives and purposes. The two primary categories of members are: ( 1 ) *Cadets.* Youths, 13 years (or having satisfactorily completed the sixth grade) through 17 years of age, who meet such prerequisites as the CAP corporation may establish from time to time. Cadet status may be retained until age 21.
( 2 ) *Seniors.* Adults, 18 years of age or older (there is no maximum age), who meet such prerequisites as the CAP corporation may establish from time to time, and who have not retained cadet status.
( d ) *Liaison officers.* Active duty Air Force officers assigned to liaison duty at the national, regional, and wing (state) levels of CAP.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83700, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### § 536.60 Splitting property damage and personal injury claims.

Normally, a claim will include all damages that accrue by reason of the incident. Where a claimant has a claim for property damage and personal injury arising from the same incident, the property damage claim may be paid, under certain circumstances, prior to the filing of the personal injury claim. The personal injury claim may be filed later provided it is filed within the applicable statute of limitations. When both property damage and personal injury arise from the same incident, the property damage claim may be paid to either the claimant or, under subparts D or H of this part, the insurer and the same claimant may receive a subsequent payment for personal injury. Only under subparts D or H of this part may the insurer receive subsequent payment for subrogated medical bills and lost earnings when the personal injury claim is settled. The primary purpose of settling an injured claimant's property damage claim before settling the personal injury claim is to pay the claimant for vehicle damage expeditiously and avoid costs associated with delay such as loss of use, loss of business, or storage charges. The Commander USARCS' approval must be obtained whenever the estimated value of any one claim exceeds $25,000, or the value of all claims, actual or potential, arising from the incident exceeds $50,000; however, if the claim arises under the FTCA or AMCSA, only if the amount claimed exceeds $50,000, or $100,000 per incident.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Deputy Inspector General

Assistant Inspector General for Investigation

Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits

 and Computer Crime Investigations

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Open Investigative Cases 

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended (the Act), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3, I hereby delegate to you, your 

successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority 

under Sections 4(a)(1), 6(a)(2), and 7(a) of the Act to open investigative cases in 

Investigation Services and Information Technology Audits and Computer Crime 

Investigations under the jurisdiction of this office, and to sign Advice of Investigation 

forms.

Specifically:

A. The Deputy Inspector General (DIG) is authorized to concur/non-concur on the 

opening of investigative cases involving allegations of misconduct by U.S. 

Department of Education employees. The Assistant Inspector General for 

Investigation (AIGI) and Assistant Inspector General for Information 

Technology Audits and Computer Crime Investigations (AIG/ITACCI) are 

authorized to open these investigative cases only with the concurrence of the 

DIG. This authority may not be redelegated.

B. The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI are authorized to open all other investigative cases.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

III. REDELEGATION

The AIGI and AIG/ITACCI may redelegate the authority delegated to him/her except 

as noted above, and except in those cases which involve allegations of criminal 

activity by elected or appointed officials.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegation Control Officer, and supersedes delegations EF/EF/109 and EF/EFI/110. 

I hereby ratify action within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date 

of certification.

 __________/s/___________ 

John P. Higgins, Jr.

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ David Berthiaume, 7/13/2004

Certified Date: 7/23/2004

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/EFT/158