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

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

          - [Docket No. APHIS-2010-0039]

# AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of reestablishment.

# SUMMARY:

We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has reestablished the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) for a 2-year period. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, Suite 101, 1498 Klondike Road, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The purpose of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) is to                           ( print page 70713)                        maintain and ensure industry involvement in Federal administration of matters pertaining to poultry health.                

The Committee Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the Committee from among its members. There are seven members on the Committee. This committee differs somewhat from other advisory committees in the selection process and composition of its membership. The poultry industry elects the members of the Committee. The members represent six geographic areas with one member-at-large. The membership is not subject to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's review.

                    A formal request for nominations for membership is generally published in the                     **Federal Register**                    . However, the Committee is making no changes to its membership at this time.                

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of November 2010.

Pearlie S. Reed,

Assistant Secretary for Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-29104 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
#### § 29.3027 Grade.

A subdivision of a type according to group, quality, and color.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 29.31 Lot.

A pile, basket, bulk, package, or other definite unit.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 275
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 275.14 Review processing. ( a ) *General.* Each State agency shall use FNS handbooks, worksheets, and schedules in the quality control review process.
( b ) *Handbooks.* The reviewer shall follow the procedures outlined in the Quality Control Review Handbook, FNS Handbook 310, to conduct quality control reviews. In addition, the sample of active and negative cases shall be selected in accordance with the sampling techniques described in the Quality Control Sampling Handbook, FNS Handbook 311.
( c ) *Worksheets.* The Form FNS-380, shall be used by the reviewer to record required information from the case record, plan and conduct the field investigation, and record findings which contribute to the determination of eligibility and basis of issuance in the review of active cases. In some instances, reviewers may need to supplement Form FNS-380 with other forms. The State forms for appointments, interoffice communications, release of information, etc., should be used when appropriate.
( d ) *Schedules.* Decisions reached by the reviewer in active case reviews shall be coded and recorded on the Integrated Review Worksheet, Form FNS-380-1. Such active case review findings must be substantiated by information recorded on the Integrated Review Worksheet, Form FNS-380. In negative case reviews, the review findings shall be coded and recorded on the Negative Quality Control Review Schedule, Form FNS-245, and supplemented as necessary with other documentation substantiating the findings.
[Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6310, Feb. 17, 1984, as amended by Amdt. 262, 49 FR 50598, Dec. 31, 1984; 75 FR 33438, June 11, 2010]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 575** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. TYREE MAURICE B LANKS , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distric t of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:03

- cr - 00388

- TLW

- 1 ; 4 :0 7

- cv - 7 001 7

- TL )

Submitted : A ugust 26 , 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismis s ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tyree Maurice Blanks , Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T yree Maurice Blanks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district co urt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have inde pendently reviewed the record and conclude that Blanks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.5

                  Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
                  ---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Non-Employee                       Fee Per Board     Equity
    Director       Annual Retainer Meeting Attended Compensation      Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald E.F. Codd       $10,000          $1000       *            $5000 for
                                                                 service as
                                                                 chairman of
                                                                 Audit Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Kelly       $10,000          $1000       *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Majteles     $10,000          $1000       *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cary R. Mock.          $10,000          $1000       *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Per 2004 Director Option Plan.

Any non-employee director joining the Adept Technology, Inc. Board of Directors
shall be entitled to an initial option grant for 10,000 shares of Adept common
stock in addition to the equity and cash compensation described above.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-1443

___________________________

Dustin L. Worthey

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: March 21, 2018

Filed: March 22, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Dustin L. Worthey appeals after the district court denied his

1

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion following a hearing. The district court granted a certificate

of appealability on Worthey’s claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.
request a continuance after the disclosure of new evidence, and for failing to call

Worthey to testify at trial. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court

affirms.

This court agreesthat Worthey’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. 

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (ineffective-assistance

claimrequiresshowing of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice); Davis

v. United States, 673 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Worthey did

not show that counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a continuance, as

counsel tried to have the new evidence excluded, did not commit an error that led to

the need for a continuance, and attempted to discredit the evidence and its admission

at trial; and the court credited counsel’s hearing testimony that Worthey did not want

a continuance. See Williams v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006)

(review of counsel’s performance is “highly deferential”); United States v.

Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 748 (8th Cir. 2002) (witness credibility determinations are

“virtually unreviewable” on appeal). Worthey also did not show how a continuance

would have changed the trial outcome. 

Worthey did not establish deficient performance in counsel’s failure to call him

to testify at trial, as counsel believed Worthey should not testify, and the court

credited counsel’s hearing testimony that Worthey did not want to testify. See

Bucklew v. Luebbers, 436 F.3d 1010, 1017-20 (8thCir. 2006) (counsel not ineffective

for not calling witness who would damage the case or whose testimony would be

cumulative); Hernandez, 281 F.3d at 748 (witness credibility determinations virtually

unreviewable); Bowman v. Gammon, 85 F.3d 1339, 1345 (8th Cir. 1996) (counsel’s

strategic decisions are virtually unreviewable); United States v. Bernloehr, 833 F.2d

749, 752 (8th Cir. 1986) (where attorney rested without calling defendant to testify,

“the accused must act affirmatively” if he wishes to testify). Worthey failed to show

how his testimony would have changed the trial outcome. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
```

[108th Congress Public Law 326]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ326.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1270]]

Public Law 108-326
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To clarify the tax treatment of bonds and other obligations issued by 
the Government of American Samoa. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2004 -  [H.R. 982]>> 

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF BONDS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS 
            ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

    (a) Exemption of All Bonds From Income Taxation by State and Local 
Governments.--Subsection (b) of section 202 of Public Law 98-454 (48 
U.S.C. 1670) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Exemption of All Bonds From Income Taxation by State and Local 
Governments.--
            ``(1) In general.--The interest on any bond or other 
        obligation issued by or on behalf of the Government of American 
        Samoa shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of 
        American Samoa and the governments of any of the several States, 
        the District of Columbia, any territory or possession of the 
        United States, and any subdivision thereof.
            ``(2) Exemption applicable only to income taxes.--The 
        exemption provided by paragraph (1) shall not apply to gift, 
        estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or other wealth 
        transfer taxes.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE <<NOTE: 48 USC 1670 note.>> DATE.

    This Act shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

    Approved October 16, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 982:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-102, Pt. 1 (Comm. on the Judiciary) and Pt. 2 
(Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 149 (2003):
                                    Nov. 4, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
                                    Sept. 29, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EDDIE MARCELLE WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00140-MP-AK

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court upon the filing of the following documents:

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. 67) and Plaintiff’s Response

to Defendant’s response. (Doc. 68). Defendant’s filing is incorrectly styled. The Court

has already ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and ordered that discovery requests

be deemed served on that date. (Doc. 64). Thus, Defendant’s response is really a

response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, not the motion to compel, and as discovery it

should not have been filed.

Plaintiff has now incorrectly filed a response to Defendant’s response, which is

actually a reply, which should not be filed without leave of court. (Doc. 68). In order to

get the docket straight and to put these documents in a proper procedural posture, the

Court will leave Defendant’s response as filed, but address it in relation to Plaintiff’s

motion, which should be re-docketed as a motion to compel. 

In its response, Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s request for investigative reports

prepared by Senior Attorney Ann Barnett. Defendant has responded that Ms. Barnett

prepared no report, and the only report that was prepared during the pendency of this

Case 1:03-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 70 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00140-MP-AK

action is protected by work product and attorney-client privilege. This appears to be the

only discovery request at issue since Defendant fully responded to the other discovery

request. Plaintiff’s motion is less than specific and would otherwise be denied on this

ground, except that Plaintiff is pro se, and because only one item can possibly be at

issue, the Court would rather rule on it so this case can move forward. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s “response” shall be recast as a motion to compel the

investigative reports, which Defendant claims are protected by privilege. Plaintiff has not

shown sufficient grounds for bypassing the privilege or work product doctrine, and

therefore the motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Clerk is directed to leave Defendant’s response (doc. 67) as filed, but the

Court is herein treating it as a response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.

2. The Clerk is directed to re-docket Plaintiff’s response (doc. 68) as a motion to

compel, which is herein DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2006

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00140-MP-GRJ Document 70 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
97- 1764.

#### State ex rel. Anderson v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 96APD05-602. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO SPALDING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-105)

Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Spalding, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Spalding seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the

district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spalding has

not made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Spalding’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). To obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on

either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously
- 3 -

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to

establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the

movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000).

Spalding’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. 

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of

appealability, decline to authorize Spalding to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LESLIE JOY MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-38-RV-MJF

J. GRANTHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated June 26, 2020 (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff was furnished a 

copy of the Report and Recommendation and was afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), but no 

objections were filed. Upon review, I have determined that the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. 

Case 5:20-cv-00038-RV-MJF Document 11 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of the court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020.

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00038-RV-MJF Document 11 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 2
Summary Description of 2004 Supplemental Incentive Compensation Plan


 

                     

                                                                            Exhibit
10.29

 


 


SUMMARY
OF 2004 SUPPLEMENTAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN







As
adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Talk America
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), the supplemental incentive compensation plan
applies to the employees of the Company and its subsidiaries who are designated
as participants by the Compensation Committee.  Under this plan, the
participating employees are organized in groups on a cross-functional basis and
charged with the responsibility for improving and monitoring the following
operational areas: customer satisfaction, general and administrative
expenses/capital budget, sales and marketing, credit quality, gross margin and
facilities-based provisioning.  Incentive compensation under this plan is
based upon the achievement of certain operational performance measures
established by the Compensation Committee when it adopted the plan.
 Maximum incentive compensation per employee for each cross-function team
is $4,000 per six-month period, with an aggregate six-month cap of $8,000.
 The Company's executive officers, other than its Chief Executive Officer
and President, are entitled to participate in this incentive plan.
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-17 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 4
PLAINTIFFS'

TRIAL EXHIBIT

P-GEN-02602

P-GEN-02602.1 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-17 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 4
P-GEN-02602.2 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-17 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 4
P-GEN-02602.3 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-17 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 4
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Yonkers Public Library, Respondent, and Landolfe Electrical Corporation, Appellant.

Order of the *576Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 8, 1966, reversed, without costs; application denied and parties directed to proceed with the arbitration on written notice to be served. In our opinion, counsel for petitioner effectively waived petitioner’s right to move to stay arbitration by participating in the arbitration proceeding without moving for a stay *(Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson],*8 N Y 2d 377; CPLR. 7503, subd. [b]). Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.