alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7

CASS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
Summary Profit Sharing Program

The purpose of the profit sharing program is to facilitate the Company’s continued growth and success by providing rewards that are commensurate with achievement, thereby creating an incentive for superior performance and improved results for shareholders. All employees of Cass Information Systems are eligible to participate in the program, unless specifically excluded due to their employment category, such as temporary staff or if their performance is not meeting the minimum expectations.

The amount of the profit sharing fund available for distribution is set by the Board of Directors and has historically been 12.5% of the company’s net profits before taxes for the period of distribution.

Distributions are not guaranteed and the company may distribute profit sharing benefits on any schedule and in any manner that it deems appropriate. Currently, distributions are made on a semi-annual basis.

Allocations to employee groups eligible to participate are divided into exempt and non-exempt pools based on the salaries of each group over the corresponding period. The non-exempt pool is distributed to each eligible employee based on a factor of salary and performance score. The exempt pool is distributed to all exempt employees considering factors such as position, salary grade and individual performance. Specific allocations are made out of the exempt pool to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other executive officers, including named executive officers (NEOs) as follows:

CEO – The CEO receives a percentage of the total profit sharing pool based on the change in net income before taxes (NIBT) from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salary at target performance of 45%. The amount paid to the CEO can range from 0% up to a maximum of 70% of base pay.

Executive Officers – A percentage of the total profit sharing pool is provided for distribution to other executive officers based on the change in NIBT from the prior year and is set to provide a target percentage of base salaries at target performance of 40%. The total funds provided for distribution to the executive officers can range from 0% up to a maximum of 50% of base pay. The amount of funds in this pool is distributed to each individual executive officer by the CEO based on a subjective evaluation considering internal equity and other individual factors related to performance.

Individual distributions to exempt employees, other than the CEO and executive officers, as a percent of salary are subject to set limits based on each individual’s pay grade and any payment in excess of these percentages shall require the review and approval of the President or Chief Operating Officer of each business unit and the CEO. Payments in excess of the set limits for the CEO and executive officers need approval from the Board of Director’s Compensation Committee.
52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the

Contract.

As prescribed in 17.208(g), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within

_____ [insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option];

provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to

extend at least _____ days[60days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the contract

expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this

option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall

not exceed ___________ (months) (years).

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.217 [Reserved]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2994 

To provide for the mandatory revocation, in addition to the mandatory denial, 

of passports of individuals who have a certain level of child support 

arrearages. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2006 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide for the mandatory revocation, in addition to the 

mandatory denial, of passports of individuals who have 

a certain level of child support arrearages. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY REVOCATION, IN ADDITION TO 

4 THE MANDATORY DENIAL, OF PASSPORTS OF 

5 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HAVE A CERTAIN 

6 LEVEL OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES. 

7 Section 452(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 652(k)) is amended— 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2994 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘, revocation, 

2 or limitation’’ and inserting ‘‘or revocation’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘may revoke, 

4 restrict, or limit’’ and inserting ‘‘shall revoke’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00633-MEF-VPM Document 1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 6 of 6
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2531 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2531

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 26, 2014

                                Received

                           February 27, 2014

          Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers 
      questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive 
IRS Requests Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, OR 
              SOCIAL BELIEFS.

    (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Service shall not ask any 
taxpayer any question regarding religious, political, or social 
beliefs.
    (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Exceptions.--It is the sense of 
Congress that--
            (1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are provided by 
        later enacted provisions of law should identify the specific 
        questions which are authorized, the class of taxpayers to which 
        such questions are authorized to be asked, and the 
        circumstances under which such questions are authorized to be 
        asked, and
            (2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
        determines that asking any class of taxpayers a question 
        prohibited under subsection (a) would aid in the efficient 
        administration of the tax laws, such Commissioner should submit 
        a report to Congress which--
                    (A) includes such question in the verbatim form in 
                which it is to be asked,
                    (B) describes the class of taxpayers to whom the 
                question is to be asked, and
                    (C) describes the circumstances that would be 
                required to exist before the question would be asked.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
01516864.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, )

)

Plaintiff. )

)

v. ) Case No.: 2:06-cv-618-MEF

)

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

CONSENT MOTION TO AMEND

INTERNAL DEADLINE IN SCHEDULING ORDER

COMES NOW the Defendant, Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (“Southern”), with

the consent of counsel for Harold Kelly Murphy (“Plaintiff”), and respectfully moves this

Court to modify the internal deadline in its scheduling order for Southern’s Rule 26

expert reports. As grounds for the motion, Southern submits the following:

1. This is a manufactured housing defect case set for trial on this Court’s

non-jury term beginning June 9, 2008. Southern is NOT seeking to continue the current

trial date.

2. The discovery cutoff under the current Scheduling Order is January 21,

2008. Southern is NOT seeking to continue the discovery cutoff.

3. However, according to the current Scheduling Order, Southern must file

its Rule 26 expert reports by December 15, 2007.

4. Plaintiff’s experts have been out of town and unavailable for deposition.

Their depositions are currently scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2007, and Friday,

December 14, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
01516864.1 2

5. In order for Southern’s experts to have the opportunity to review

Plaintiff’s expert depositions before completing their own expert reports, Southern

requests that this Court amend the scheduling order to extend by fourteen (14) days the

deadline for Southern’s Rule 26 expert reports.

6. Counsel for Plaintiff has agreed to this extension.

7. As mentioned above, this extension will not delay the trial of this case or

the discovery cutoff.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Southern respectfully requests that

the Court extend Southern’s expert report deadline from December 15th until December

29th.

/s/Thomas W. Thagard III

Lee E. Bains, Jr. (BA1005)

Thomas W. Thagard, III (THA006)

Edward S. Sledge, IV (SLE008)

Attorneys for Southern Energy Homes, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

Birmingham, AL 35203

(205) 254-1000 (Telephone)

(205) 254-1999 (Facsimile)

E-mail: lbains@maynardcooper.com

E-mail: tthagard@maynardcooper.com

E-mail: sledge@maynardcooper.com

W. Scott Simpson

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100

Birmingham, Alabama 35216-3084

205.876.1600 (Telephone)

205.876.1616 (Facsimile)

E-mail: wssimpson@ritcheysimpson.com

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
01516864.1 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 10, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

Carter Gibson Vance

E-mail: gibson.vance@beasleyallen.com

Charles Lance Gould, Esq.

E-mail: lance.gould@beasleyallen.com

/s/Thomas W. Thagard III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
§ 765.402 Transfer of security and loan assumption on same rates and terms. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 65043 , Aug. 8, 2024.
An eligible applicant may assume an FLP loan on the same rates and terms as the original note if: ( a ) The original borrower has died and the spouse, other relative, or joint tenant who is not obligated on the note inherits the security property;
( b ) A family member of the borrower or an entity comprised solely of family members of the borrower assumes the debt along with the original borrower;
( c ) An individual with an ownership interest in the borrower entity buys the entire ownership interest of the other members and continues to operate the farm in accordance with loan requirements. The new owner must assume personal liability for the loan;
( d ) A new entity buys the borrower entity and continues to operate the farm in accordance with loan requirements; or
( e ) The original loan is an EM loan for physical or production losses and persons who were directly involved in the farm's operation at the time of the loss will assume the loan. If the original loan was made to: ( 1 ) An individual borrower, the transferee must be a family member of the original borrower or an entity in which the entity members are comprised solely of family members of the original borrower.
( 2 ) A trust, partnership or joint operation, the transferee must have been a member, partner or joint operator when the Agency made the original loan or remain an entity comprised solely of people who were original entity members, partners or joint operators when the entity received the original loan.
( 3 ) A corporation, limited liability company, cooperative, or other legal business organization, the transferee must: ( i ) Have been a corporate stockholder, cooperative member or other member of a legal business organization, when the Agency made the original loan or will be an entity comprised solely of entity members who were entity members when the entity received the loan; and
( ii ) Assume only the portion of the physical or production loss loan equal to the transferee's percentage of ownership. In the case of entity transferees, the transferee must assume that portion of the loan equal to the combined percentages of ownership of the individual stockholders or entity members in the transferee.
[72 FR 63309, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 60745, Oct. 8, 2014]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10577 Summary Calendar

__________________
RICHARD BRENTON TOBIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus E. YOUNG, Judge; TIM CURRY; TARRANT CITY JAIL, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:93CV00049

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Brenton Tobias appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his § 1983 claims arising out of his state criminal prosecution and his incarceration at the Tarrant County Jail by granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. We do not consider Tobias' argument regarding the district court's denial of his motion for a restraining order because Tobias did not brief it adequately. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). The district courtNo. 95-10577 -2- properly dismissed Tobias' damages claims against Judge Young and District Attorney Curry with prejudice based on absolute immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment on Tobias' medical claim was proper. See Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). We do not consider Tobias' argument that the district court erred in not addressing the claims contained in his first supplemental complaint due to Tobias' failure to call these issues to the attention of the district court and his failure to state what these issues are on appeal. Varnado , 920 F.2d at 321. We hold that Tobias' appeal is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Tobias’ motion to supplement the record is DENIED. Tobias was warned that he could be sanctioned for filing frivolous appeals in Tobias v. Brown , No. 95-40379 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 1995). Tobias is hereby BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court, or any pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Tobias, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
#### § 760.913 Refunds; joint and several liability.

In the event there is a failure to comply with any term, requirement, or condition for payment or assistance arising under this subpart, and if any refund of a payment to FSA will otherwise become due in connection with this subpart, all payments made in regard to such matter must be refunded to FSA together with interest and late-payment charges as provided for in part 792 of this chapter.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76466-76467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30878]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocation

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. chapter 
409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR

[[Page 76467]]

part 515, effective on the corresponding date shown below:
    License Number: 3007F.
    Name: Berardino & Associates Incorporated.
    Address: 188 Industrial Drive, Suite 427, Elmhurst, IL 60126.
    Date Revoked: November 9, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 022766N.
    Name: Atlantic Integrated Freight Inc.
    Address: 19 Princeton Drive, Dix Hills, NY 11746.
    Date Revoked: November 5, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010-30878 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
```
§ 772.14 Reamortization of AMP loans. The Agency may approve reamortization of AMP loans provided: ( a ) There is no extension of the final maturity date of the loan;
( b ) No intervening lien exists on the security for the loan which would jeopardize the Government's security position;
( c ) If the account is delinquent, it cannot be brought current within one year and the borrower has presented a cash flow budget which demonstrates the ability to meet the proposed new payment schedule; and
( d ) If the account is current, the borrower will be unable to meet the annual loan payments due to circumstances beyond the borrower's control.
#### George W. Nicholas et al., Respondents, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Submitted May 9, 1884 ;

decided June 3, 1884.)

*W. H. Adams*for appellant.

*Arthw G. Smith*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 33.3**[JPMORGAN CHASE LOGO]****MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**          JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessingcompliance as of September 30, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through September 30,2006 (the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”), to the extent required by the relatedtransaction agreements and excluding the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) (1)(ii)-(iv),(2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(i)-(ii), and (4)(iv)-(xiv) which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securitizationtransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report covers certain asset-backedsecurities transactions backed by residential mortgages, home equity loans, auto loans, credit cardreceivables, dealer floor plans, retail installment contracts and manufactured housing contractsfor which transactions the Asserting Party performs the Applicable Servicing Criteria as trustee,securities administrator or paying agent that were registered with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, where the related asset-backedsecurities were outstanding during the reporting period (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.          The Asserting Party has (i) used the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) to assess thecompliance by the Asserting Party with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand (ii) concluded that, other than as identified on Appendix B, the Asserting Party has complied,in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2006 and forthe Reporting Period with respect to the Platform, taken as a whole.          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform, stating that the Asserting Party has complied with theApplicable Servicing Criteria, except for material instances of non-compliance identified onAppendix B, as of September 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period.   JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association   /s/ Kelly A. Mathieson Kelly A. Mathieson, Managing Director  Date: March 14, 2007  
 

 
**APPENDIXA**BA Master Credit Card Trust II
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 1 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 2 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 3 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 4 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 5 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 6 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 7 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 8 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 9 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 10 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 11 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 12 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 13 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 14 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 15 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 16 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 17 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 18 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 19 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 20 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 21 of 22
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 43-5 Filed 06/13/2007 Page 22 of 22