alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit10.1**

**2007 Bonus Plan**

On February 1, 2007, the Compensation Committeerecommended that the Board of Directors approve a new Bonus Plan (the “BonusPlan”) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.  The Bonus Planwas approved by the Board of Directors on the same date.  Under the BonusPlan, bonuses may be awarded to the Company’s employees, including the Company’sexecutive officers, upon the satisfaction of certain goals based on apercentage of annual base salaries.  The goals include attaining measuredresults for some or all of the following categories: cash flow, capital andresearch and development budgets, revenues, research and development andoperations performance, and safety.

Under the terms of the Bonus Plan, the Company’semployees, including its executive officers, may receive a bonus calculatedbased on a percentage of their annual base salary.  The ultimatepercentage of annual base salary used to calculate bonuses, if any bonuses arepaid, will be at the sole discretion of the Compensation Committee.  Thetarget percentage and the high percentage of base salary set by theCompensation Committee to be used for purposes of calculating bonuses to theCompany’s employees, including its executive officers, are as follows:
| ** **                                                    | ** ** | **Target Percentage** | ** ** | **High Percentage** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|--------------------------|------------|
| Staff (Operations,  Accounting & Administrative)          |       | 10                         | %          | 20                       | %          |
| Manager                                                       |       | 15                         | %          | 30                       | %          |
| Senior Manager                                                |       | 25                         | %          | 40                       | %          |
| Executive (other than  President and Chief Executive Officer) |       | 40                         | %          | 80                       | %          |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                         |       | 50                         | %          | 100                      | %          |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99 (a) 
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Canandaigua National Corporation for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George W. Hamlin, IV, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

May 13, 2003 
/s/ George W. Hamlin, IV
Date 
George W. Hamlin, IV, Chief Executive Officer**
24.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes policies and procedures that apply requirements of the Privacy Act of1974 (5

U.S.C.552a) (the Act) and OMB CircularNo.A-130, December 12,1985, to Government contracts and

cites the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.552, as amended).

Parent topic: Part 24 - Protection of Privacy and Freedom of Information
OFFICE OF THE **A-ITORNEY** GENERAL OF 

### TEXAS AUSTIN o- c MAW4 l-n amt rSaho01 Dlwtrlot the tqu8liaoUon

t ibr the pamt *no dlon old 

### out of mm tioa but thir year *a 

### otrl0-t ia eaut1*a 60 8i6 tm 

### a 0t sm60 au. 

### NO. ibs, sing *ml Spooial

Law of T*u+ ,tod

call.4 WV. a* ltlnl~8toad tlrt the dirtrlot ir oth~r*loo



### qurruri8d to no0in traml ~0i u b d

pr6h 0 pror id 0 f

Br o t h 

### aft is rt48.a fll a9 2bx. atr. p. roa watt

‘Woaumlly 0. provie Lo aoaatrur6 kr mnnoot2oa rdth **the** ertielm or notion of rhisb It mrma(Lpart, and i8 tc bs I.:VUI oiioot lf rruonablr porelblo, rooordiog ta *Ilo olwr#aala~ of th9 lwgu!Agr usob. ~W%'Umuily 8 prorho f8 lbite& to the olaucl *!a& nmxt pnaedos it WC td whfeh it lr rttaohed, Zro dmre than uo ruooocraivo provfeos, tbo htb;%ll br ~drrstood OS WUTislg to

. . . .~ 11*forr&n8001 to seotlon 8 .Of FIOUW BlU m. MS it dll 

### k 840t0a

*bet It rirot prwlhoa that &lstrlotr any01 oli&rc, *ioh ptp wt t-r thw fO rohd.mtleinew PDM tlmn bOO roholeotior,

. TeSb~ thie raqulreaent ir l provim l x a m ptfn g

rahoolr fo l 

### mrnlt matlad wuntlo~ 

### from tbr pinionna

nrtrlouw 

### of no r o ho l r r u r o..

b@a tliqg

*. drt rzltrnoo

t he AO$ mea l wmptr r o wtio no l @l a o ud r : a t a r UlPPlod P h ll dnn

t r o8 t ho limlsatiotl8 l XpMnw& lath%8 *ctleaanU fbrawabr

1). . aviaod tbrt the Bld.musilId nxlmum Ichol8#tlq ibIt heroE mov!4od dmll not 8p 

### aia to amy 8ohooldlotrlot otantala P J SOS tnarport~tion ap 4a l qurs*mibo aa Pndoubfie&ly ii the sooti~on mida&

### at thle point there muld br no qubstioa but that Bangor Xndopmdeat 8ohml District wiwlb **bc** uititlob to trmllporkt&oo ria, !Gopaxmtod'by a me&l-oolon, bowvor, $ho rwotloo aontlauoo: tlon 2 b aad provldrd furthsr %kmt thr wxi8um llmlto8rWlartio populetlon bewin 8ot for$bh rbrll

xmoping ln she the iorrgoll3g Nl@b of wn11trwtlcm, wo **thhlc tbet**  it ir rlgnlflcaat tbet the portioa of t&e aot la& quoted l b w o is wpm*tod tmaa UIat whlhh gore beforeby l l ombolon en8
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM

WILLIE JAMES FRANCIS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion (doc. 242) to

reduce sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act, the retroactive crack cocaine

amendment (Amendment 750), and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). The Government filed

a response in opposition (doc. 244) and Defendant filed a reply (doc. 246).

Upon review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a sentence

reduction because application of the guideline amendment results in no change

to his sentencing range. Defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory

minimum sentence, which also determined his sentencing range. Because

Defendant’s sentencing range remains the same under the amended guidelines,

he is not eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Williams, 549

F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th
Page 2 of 2

Cir. 2011) (Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to drug amounts triggering statutory

minimum mandatory sentences do not apply retroactively to defendants who

were sentenced before its enactment). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence

(doc. 242) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:01cr47-SPM
Matrice tOO-Intelligent Orientation Control (IOC) 

FromDHWiki 

IOC allows users to lock 1hc orlcnration of ain:mft in diffm:nt fashions It has tlm:e working modt:S you c:an 

choose in the Dn Pilot app. IOC ouly wmb in F-Mode, and uscn muat toggle the fligbl mode IIWitd1 to FMode to activate IOC. 'Ihll tlm!e wmk modes 1m1: 

Loc:k d:te eurrmt DOH ~ as d:te ain:raft'a forward dirtdiou. The airc:raft WJ11 move in the 

CL lodcecl clirectiona reprdlese of its oricmation (yaw angle). Tap Ract IOC to reset d:te Course 

Lock. 

HL• Recore~ a Home Point, and push 1hc Pitdl stick ~down to contro11be d.iat:ancc of the Urc:raft tiom 

the Home Poiot. 

POI• Record. a point of interest (POI). The aircrat\'1 nose always poillts toward& d:te POL 

Tills: 

• The Home Lodl: (HL) mel PoiDt ofiD.teMst (POI) t'et1mes ue coming IIOOll. 

Preft:qW.ites ofiOC 

Use IOC uncler the followiDg conditiou: IOC 

IOCModet GPS GPSSip•l Jlli&llt Diltaee IdmiU Enabled StreDgth 

Coune No Nllllll NODI! Loc:k 

Hmm:Lock Yes Ill The diltancc between Aimaft lll!d Home 

P~lOm 

POI Yes Ill The diat:aJu:e between Ain:raft and POI 5m-500m 

Enabling IOC 

Go to the on Pilot app > Camera View> I MODE I > Adv&DCecl Settings> Toggle IOC. On d:te remote 

WlllioDer, toggle the FJiPt Mode Swildl to P-Mocle to uae IOC. 

TiJls: 

F-Mocle suppol.'t8 IOC. API Comrot and ok ftm~u. with IOC hlviDg the highest priority. Disable IOC 

:first to use ok fimctiou. 

112 
1011/2015 Matrice 100-lntslligent Orientation Control (IOC)- DJI Wiki 

Retrieved from "http:/ /wiki.dji.corn!enlindex.php?title=Matrice _1 00-

Intelligent_ Orientation_ Control_(IOC)&oldid=23421" 

• This page was last modified on 27 August 2015, at 02:38. 

• This page has been accessed 571 times. 

http://wiki.dji.oom/en/inclex.phptMatrice_100-lntelligent_Orientation_Controi_(IOC) 2/2
160 So.2d 231

#### Succession of Edese HOLLIER.

No. 47055.

Feb. 14, 1964.

Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.

158 So.2d 351.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
## CITY OF CODY WYOMING

NancyTia Brown MAYOR 

### Donny Anderson Bryan Edwards Jerry Fritz Landon Greer 

### Steve Miller Stan Wolz COUNCD.. MEMBERS



### C. Edward Webster II MUNICIPAL JUDGE


### JenniferR. 

### Rosencranse CITY ADMINISTRATOR



### 1338 Rumsey Avenue P.O. Box 2200 Cody, Wyoming 82414 (307) 527-7511 FAX (307) 527-6532**~....._-** ......., '? : . .l**/~** u

March 5, 2013

Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation
Dear Mr. Martin: On behalfofthe City ofCody Governing Body, please accept this letter of support for SkyWest Airlines providing essential air service to Yellowstone Regional Airport in Cody, Wyoming. As you are well aware, the number ofenplanements at Yellowstone Regional Airport has a huge economic impact to the City of Cody and the sustainability ofeconomic growth and future development for Cody. SkyWest has been a great partnerto the Yellowstone Regional Airport for many years and we are encouraged that this partnership will continue. Thank you all once again foryour leadership and insight in this program and we wish you great success in ensuring the continuation ofyear round air service In the Cody Community. 

### Sincerely, 

# A

# ~1~~ Mayor
# L_2014054EN.01002202.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 54/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 54/22

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1361/2013 of 17 December 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 343 of 19 December 2013
  )

On page 7, in the title and in the concluding formula, and on the cover page:

for:

‘
  17 December 2013
  ’,

read:

‘
  18 December 2013
  ’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,556,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,556,725
<PP&E>                                       6,108,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,665,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,496,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,665,114
<SALES>                                        893,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,475,861
<CGS>                                          205,828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               487,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,782,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,782,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,782,089
<EPS-BASIC>                                    25.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    25.79


</TABLE>
160 So.2d 225

#### Clifton J. LYONS v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 47078.

Feb. 7, 1964.

In re: Clifton J. Lyons applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 158 So.2d 392. ,.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### In the Matter of Arthur A. Katz et al., Respondents, v Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr., et al., Constituting the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Mamaroneck, Appellants.

Appeal from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 31, 1979, dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements. It is not disputed that petitioners have the right to install the solar panels. Accordingly, the issue raised on the appeal is rendered moot. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL WAYNE LAQUE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv6025/LAC/EMT

SHERIFF BOB JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May

19, 2021 (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

15) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

comply with an order of the court.

Case 3:20-cv-06025-LC-EMT Document 16 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with

this order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv6025/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-06025-LC-EMT Document 16 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Thomas W. Kennedy, Appellant, v Elsie I. Kennedy, Respondent.

Two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 29, 1980 and September 18, 1980, respectively affirmed, without costs or disbursements. (We deem the notice of appeal from the decision dated Sept. 28, 1979 to be a premature notice of appeal from the Sept. 18, 1980 order. See CPLR 5520, subd [c].) No opinion. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
52.236-1 Performance of Work by the

Contractor.

As prescribed in 36.501(b), insert the following clause: [Complete the clause by inserting the

appropriate percentage consistent with the complexity and magnitude of the work and customary or

necessary specialty subcontracting (see 36.501(a)).]

Performance of Work by the Contractor (Apr 1984)

The Contractor shall perform on the site, and with its own organization, work equivalent to at least

_______ [insert the appropriate number in words followed by numerals in parentheses] percent of the

total amount of work to be performed under the contract. This percentage may be reduced by a

supplemental agreement to this contract if, during performing the work, the Contractor requests a

reduction and the Contracting Officer determines that the reduction would be to the advantage of

the Government.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.236 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

EASTERN DIVISION

 

LORNA SHANNA KEITH, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 1:20-cv-01005-JDB-jay 

ERICA STRONG, 

FCI Tallahassee Warden, 

 

Defendant. 

 

 

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2241 PETITION 

Petitioner, Lorna Shanna Keith, has filed a 28 U.S.C. §2241 petition alleging that the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons is not giving her “good time credits” for the time she spent in state 

custody prior to her federal incarceration. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1 at PageID 1.) The Petition is 

before the Court for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, No. 02–5520, 

2002 WL 31388736, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). 

A prisoner's challenge to the execution of her sentence, including the determination of good 

time credits or credit for time spent in state custody, is properly brought in a § 2241 petition. See

United States v. Gordon, No. 17-20067, 2019 WL 5586966, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2019) 

(citing Sullivan v. United States, 90 F. App’x. 862, 863 (6th Cir. 2004)) (“The application of goodtime credits . . . is properly analyzed under § 2241”); O'Bryan v. Terris, No. 2:16-CV-12591, 2017 

WL 3225962, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017), aff'd, No. 17-2025, 2018 WL 4191326 (6th Cir. 

Mar. 1, 2018) (addressing prisoner’s § 2241 claim challenging “the BOP’s decision to deny him 

credit on his federal sentence for the time he spent in state custody from . . . when the federal 

detainer was placed against him [until] the day his state court sentence was discharged”). A § 

Case 4:20-cv-00435-TKW-EMT Document 6 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

2241 petition must be brought against the prisoner’s custodian in the district in which the custodian 

is located. United States v. Garcia-Echaverria, 374 F.3d 440, 449 (6th Cir. 2004). 

Petitioner is incarcerated at Tallahassee Federal Correctional Institute in Tallahassee, Leon 

County, Florida, which is in the Northern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 89(a). The Clerk of 

Court has recorded the Respondent as the warden of that facility, but the case was not brought in 

that district. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), that this case 

is TRANSFERRED, forthwith, to the Northern District of Florida. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case without entry of judgment. The Clerk is 

FURTHER DIRECTED not to file any documents in this closed case. Any documents received 

from Petitioner should be forwarded to the transferee court or returned to Petitioner, as appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September 2020. 

 s/ J. DANIEL BREEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:20-cv-00435-TKW-EMT Document 6 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 4287.302 Definitions.

The definitions and abbreviations contained in § 4279.202 of this chapter apply to this subpart.
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-139955) of MSB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) of our report dated September 24, 2007, relating to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, which report is included in the Form 10-KSB.

 

/s/ Beard Miller Company LLP

 

Beard Miller Company LLP

Pine Brook, New Jersey

September 28, 2007
52.217-7 Option for Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item.       As prescribed in 17.208(e), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:          Option for Increased Quantity-Separately Priced Line Item (Mar 1989)          The Government may require the delivery of the numbered line item, identified in the Schedule as an option item, in the quantity and at the price stated in the Schedule. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within ______________________ [*insert in the clause the period of time in which the Contracting Officer has to exercise the option*]. Delivery of added items shall continue at the same rate that like items are called for under the contract, unless the parties otherwise agree.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.217 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT 33.3**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

**SERVICER’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for theperiod from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) of the Platform Transactions (as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122) (“Item1122(d)”), except the following criteria 1122 (d)(1)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii)-(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(vi), 1122 (d)(3)(i)(C), 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(iv), and 1122 (d)(4)(vi)-(xv), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the servicing of themortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a “Mortgage Loan”), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the Mortgage Loans (such criteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions, the “ApplicableServicing Criteria”)**.**  The transactions covered by this Servicer’s Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007 for which the Asserting Partyperformed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122(d) and that included one or more classes of publicly offered securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the“Platform Transactions”).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing Criterion, and hasconcluded that it has complied in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans, except that, with respect to compliance with Item 1122 (d)(2)(vii)(B), two of twelve bank statementreconciliations examined were not prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date, but were prepared within 30 calendar days after monthend, which was 32 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date**.**

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated:  February 22, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. 

By: /s/ Barbara CampbellName:  Barbara CampbellTitle:    First Vice President