alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Farmers Capital Bank Corporation; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or   omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |   March 12, 2010 |   |  /s/ Doug Carpenter                  |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   | C. Douglas Carpenter                      |   |
|   |                  |   | Senior Vice President, Secretary, and CFO |   |

----
239.7102-1 General. ( a ) Agencies shall ensure that information assurance is provided for information technology in accordance with current policies, procedures, and statutes, to include— ( 1 ) The National Security Act;
( 2 ) The Clinger-Cohen Act;
( 3 ) National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy No. 11;
( 4 ) Federal Information Processing Standards;
( 5 ) DoD Directive 8500.1, Information Assurance;
( 6 ) DoD Instruction 8500.2, Information Assurance Implementation;
( 7 ) DoD Directive 8140.01, Cyberspace Workforce Management; and
( 8 ) DoD Manual 8570.01-M, Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program.
( b ) For all acquisitions, the requiring activity is responsible for providing to the contracting officer— ( 1 ) Statements of work, specifications, or statements of objectives that meet information assurance requirements as specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
( 2 ) Inspection and acceptance contract requirements; and
( 3 ) A determination as to whether the information technology requires protection against compromising emanations.
[69 FR 35534, June 25, 2004, as amended at 73 FR 1829, Jan. 10, 2008; 75 FR 34946, June 21, 2010; 80 FR 56930, Sept. 21, 2015]
Performance Reports

Grantees under this program must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170. This does not apply if a grantee has an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

At the end of the project period, grantees must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary.  If a grantee receives a multiyear award, the grantee must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118.  The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c).  For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

Grantees submit reports through the FIPSE Grant Database. The Department provides grantees with the required password and other information needed to access the FIPSE database system. The database also includes a publicly accessible searchable catalog of abstracts of projects funded under OPE's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education programs.

Performance Measures

For purposes of evaluating the success of the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department will use the following performance measures:   
- The number of underserved students served by any direct student service supported by the grant.
- The annual persistence rate at grantee institutions for all students who are served by any direct student service supported by the grant. 
- The annual rate of degree or certificate completion at grantee institutions for all students served by any direct student service supported by the grant.

FIPSE Home
  Last Modified: 11/09/2021
## Timeline

**Current Competition: FY 2021**Application Available: November 5, 2021Application Deadline: December 6, 2021

## Federal Register Notice

- Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for FY 2021  dated November 5, 2021
Please note this document is not final.  The notice published in the Federal Register is the final approved document.
PDF
 (221K)

Current Application

The application for the FY 2021 Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program is available now on Grants.gov.

**TO APPLY:**

To apply for a grant under the FY 2021 Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program (Opportunity Number ED-GRANTS-110521-002), go to www.Grants.gov.

Tips and Assistance

Please follow the guidance published in the *Federal Register* Notice here and the application instructions in Grants.gov.

FY 2021 Basic Needs Program Pre-Application Webinar Slides (Coming Soon)

FY 2021 Basic Needs Program Pre-application Webinar Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1pm EST 

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

FIPSE Home
#### 252.225-7048 Export-Controlled Items.

As prescribed in *225.7901-4*, use the following clause:

# Export-Controlled Items (JUN 2013)

(a) *Definition.* “Export-controlled items,” as used in this clause, means items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR Parts 730-774) or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130). The term includes—

(1) “Defense items,” defined in the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(j)(4)(A), as defense articles, defense services, and related technical data, and further defined in the ITAR, 22 CFR Part 120; and

(2) “Items,” defined in the EAR as “commodities”, “software”, and “technology,” terms that are also defined in the EAR, 15 CFR 772.1.

(b) The Contractor shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items, including, but not limited to, the requirement for contractors to register with the Department of State in accordance with the ITAR. The Contractor shall consult with the Department of State regarding any questions relating to compliance with the ITAR and shall consult with the Department of Commerce regarding any questions relating to compliance with the EAR.

(c) The Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, the information provided by this clause.

(d) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive orders, and regulations, including but not limited to—

(1) The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401, *et seq.*);

(2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751, *et seq.*);

(3) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, *et seq.*);

(4) The Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774);

(5) The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Parts 120-130); and

(6) Executive Order 13222, as extended.

(e) The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts.

(End of clause)

[78 FR 36113, June 17, 2013]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6095

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, Perry Correctional

Institution; CHARLES L. BROCK, Deputy Warden;

MR. ADAMS, in Mail Room at Perry Correctional

Institution; MR. RUMP, in Mail Room Perry

Correctional Institution; MS. MARSHALL, R.I.C.

on hill, Perry Correctional Institution; MR.

ROBERTSON, quit, was R.I.C. at Q-1, Perry

Correctional Institution; E. DUVALL,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA; U. S. GOVERNMENT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-93-1794-2-21AJ)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,

II, David Leon Morrison, John Thomas Lay, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE,

DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Rochester v. Witkowski, No. CA-93-1794-2-21AJ (D.S.C. Dec.

28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

EASTERN DIVISION

BECKY WHITTINGTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 4361

)

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, )

a Delaware limited liability company, and )

WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., L.P.A. )

an Ohio limited professional association, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This recently-brought action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has been assigned

at random to this Court’s calendar. Counsel for plaintiff Becky Whittington, a Missouri citizen, is well

aware of the dim view this Court takes of such actions when their only meaningful connection to this

forum is the location of counsel’s offices, with all of the efforts at debt collection having emanated from

other states and being directed to the plaintiff at his or her residence elsewhere.

1

But in this instance Complaint ¶ 4 alleges as to one of the two defendants:

From its offices in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, Equable operates a nationwide delinquent

debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every

state, including consumers in the State of Illinois.

If that allegation denotes Buffalo Grove as the location of co-defendant Equable’s hub, this Court’s area

of concern identified at the outset is not present. This Court is accordingly ordering its customary initial

status hearing, at which time it would expect to inquire into the validity of the premise referred to in the

preceding sentence.

__________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 11, 2012

This should not be misunderstood as a view disfavoring the statute itself, which this Court 1

considers a commendable effort by Congress to curb undesirable practices in this area of activity.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.19

                         2000 CASH INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

PHILOSOPHY: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

     - Goal is to increase shareholder valuation.

     - Performance metrics must be understandable, measurable, consistent and
       designed to achieve the goal.

INCENTIVE POTENTIAL consists of TARGET INCENTIVE and SUPER ACHIEVEMENT
INCENTIVE.

                              CONCORD AND SUPPLY SITES

TARGET INCENTIVE

- Earned based on achieving business profitability, and Personal Performance
  Goals (PPGs) with the portions allocable between business profitability and
  PPGs determined individually based on function and responsibilities.

- Capped at 5%-100% of Base Salary (% determined individually).

- Target Incentive is tracked quarterly and paid annually.

- BUSINESS PROFITABILITY COMPONENT

       Metric is:     EBITDA for Concord (this includes all participants not
                      in the Supply Sites or in Sales); and
                      PCM for the Supply Sites.
                      All metrics are measured in dollars, not percentages.

       50% of this component is earned at 85% of the AOP metric, and the
       balance is earned linearly up to 100% of the AOP metric.

- PPG COMPONENT

       Percentage earned is determined by scoring achievement of PPGs and is
       contingent on the Company achieving at least 85% of AOP EBITDA (85%
       of AOP PCM for the Supply Sites). At that point, whatever percentage
       of the PPG Component that has been earned based on scoring of
       performance is triggered and will be paid annually.

SUPER ACHIEVEMENT INCENTIVE

- Earned based on exceeding the applicable AOP metric for profitability
  (EBITDA for Concord and PCM for the Supply Sites). The Super Achievement
  Incentive applies at the Site level only to the Site Managers and certain
  members of their staffs as required by existing contractual commitments.
<PAGE>

- A percentage of incremental profitability is allocated to a Super
  Achievement Incentive pool for all participants, I.E., out of each $1.00 of
  incremental EBITDA, $.20 is paid into the pool.

- Super Achievement Incentive is calculated and paid annually.

ELIGIBILITY

     - To be eligible for participation in the 2000 Cash Incentive Plan, the
       employee must be employed by Manufacturers' Services or have been
       promoted to an eligible position by October 1, 2000. All payments for
       new hires are prorated based on the date of hire. Promotions,
       involving a change to your bonus plan, are treated as follows:

       - Promotion during the first half of the year receives credit for the
         entire year.

       - Promotion between July and September receives credit for the second
         half of the year.

     - To receive a Cash Incentive payment for 2000 the employee must be
       employed by Manufacturers' Services on the date of payout.

     - All Cash Incentive payments will be based on the participant's annual
       average Base Salary.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 1557, January 8, 2021.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 

Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING: 

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. has been changed to Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. In addition, the following matter will also be considered:
      - Other matters relating to examination matters and enforcement proceedings.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: January 13, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-01101 Filed 1-13-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
1 The Honorable Theodore McMillian diedJanuary 18, 2006. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of th e panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1048

___________ Crescenciano Pena, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dr. David Eduardy; Warden, FMC * Rochester, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 6, 2006 Filed: January 20, 2006

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN 1 , and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.2 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and r ecommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
3 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). -2- Federal inmate Crescenciano Pena appeals the district court’s 2adverse grant of summary judgment in his Bivens 3 action. We review denovo the grant of summary judgment, drawing all inferences in favor of Pena. See Jolly v. Knudsen , 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000). Having done so, we agree with the district court that the summary judgment record revealed no Eighth Amendment violation. See Pool v. Sebastian County, Ark. , 418 F.3d 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2005) (prisoner must show more than even gross negligence, and mere di sagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to level of constituti onal violation); Long v Nix , 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (inmates do not have constitutional right to particular type of treatment; nothing in Eighth Amendment prevents prison physicians from exercising independent medical judgment).
We decline to consider whether the di strict court properly determined that Warden Constance Reece was not properly se rved, because Pena has not challenged that determination. See Primary Care Investors, Seven, Inc. v. PHP Healthcare Corp. , 986 F.2d 1208, 1212 (8th Cir. 1993). We also d ecline to consider Pena’s newly raised claim that he suffered substantiv e due process violations. See Stone v. Harry , 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not presented to district court may not be advanced on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fortunato Paturso, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on March 8, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Concur — Burns, J. P., Fein and Lane, JJ.

Lynch and Sandler, JJ.,

concur in a memorandum by Sandler, J., as follows: Following the People’s case, a codefendant was permitted to enter a plea to grand larceny in the second degree, a significantly lower charge than that previously made available to her, and one that permitted discretion to the sentencing Judge to place her on probation. In colloquies with the court and counsel, the trial prosecutor made quite clear the strategy that he was pursuing. He wished to keep the codefendant in the case until the completion of the People’s evidence so that the jury would hear her confession. That statement, although redacted, gave background information with regard to the planning of the robbery that the District Attorney felt would be helpful to his case. The vice in this strategy is that the jury at no time could properly consider the statement with regard to the codefendant and that it became the duty of the Trial Judge, after the entry of the plea, to strike the statement from the record and instruct the jury to disregard it. The District Attorney’s assumption that he might derive some appropriate advantage from the jury hearing evidence that it was obligated not to consider is a troublesome one. The Trial Judge made clear his disapproval. He would have been better advised to grant defendant’s motion to sever. However, reversal does not seem to us to be mandated. The evidence adduced at trial was truly overwhelming and it seems extremely unlikely that the redacted statement could have had any prejudicial impact or that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Unlike *People v Lowry*(8 AD2d 956) and *People v Schwarz*(10 AD2d 17), the record does not support the charge of a deal between the prosecutor and the counsel for the codefendant. Counsel for the codefendant here took an active role during the trial and until the plea was entered. His participation cannot fairly be described as sham. Nonetheless, we think it important to make clear our disapproval of that which here occurred.