alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2125 RICK NOEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KAISER BELLWOOD CORPORATION; JAMES S. JOHNSTON, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-1277 RICK NOEL, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KAISER BELLWOOD CORPORATION; JAMES S. JOHNSTON, Defendants - Appellants.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-654-3) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 14, 20022 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philip Bradley, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Appellant. Michael P. Oates, Edwin F. Farren, IV, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Rick Noel appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985 (1994). Kaiser Bellwood Corporation and James S. Johnston appeal from the district court’s order granting Noel’s motion to extend the notice of appeal period. We have reviewed theparties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Noel v. Kaiser Bellwood Corp. , No. CA-99-654-3 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2000; Jan. 30, 2001). 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
224.203 Policy.

(a) DoD implementation is in DoDD 5400.7, DoD Freedom of Information Act Program, and DoD

5400.7-R, DoD Freedom of Information Act Program.

Parent topic: Subpart 224.2 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Document No. 

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies mailed to:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:03cr135/LAC

3:05cv127/LAC/MD

KIMBERLY DUKES FORD

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and at the direction of the Court, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant take nothing and that the

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence in DENIED. 

 September 6, 2005

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ C. Justice

DATE Deputy Clerk

Case 3:03-cr-00135-LC Document 44 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Stephen Tunstall, Respondent, *v.*Walter W. Winton, Appellant.

(Submitted June 17, 1884;

decided June 24, 1884.)

*B. F. Sa/unyer*for appellant.

*Edward P. Wilder*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 311]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ311.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 2455]]

Public Law 107-311
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the enforcement 
     and effectiveness of civilian orders of protection on military 
          installations. <<NOTE: Dec. 2, 2002 -  [H.R. 5590]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Armed Forces Domestic 
Security Act. 10 USC 1561 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Domestic Security Act''.

SEC. 2. FORCE AND EFFECT OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 80 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1561 the following new section:

``Sec. 1561a. Civilian orders of protection: force and effect on 
                        military installations

    ``(a) Force and Effect.--A civilian order of protection shall have 
the same force and effect on a military installation as such order has 
within the jurisdiction of the court that issued such order.
    ``(b) Civilian Order of Protection Defined.--In this section, the 
term `civilian order of protection' has the meaning given the term 
`protection order' in section 2266(5) of title 18.
    ``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
regulations to carry out this section. The regulations shall be designed 
to further good order and discipline by members of the armed forces and 
civilians present on military installations.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1561 the following new item:

``1561a. Civilian orders of protection: force and effect on military 
           installations.''.

    Approved December 2, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5590:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Oct. 15, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 14, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### §§ 60.108-60.110 [Reserved]
235.006 Contracting methods and contract type.       (b)(i) For major defense acquisition programs as defined in 10 U.S.C. 4201—          (A)  Follow the procedures at                 234.004             ; and          (B) Notify the milestone decision authority of an intent not to exercise a fixed-price production option on a development contract for a major weapon system reasonably in advance of the expiration of the option exercise period.          (ii) For other than major defense acquisition programs—          (A)  Do not award a fixed-price type contract for a development program effort unless—          (*1*)  The level of program risk permits realistic pricing;          (*2*)  The use of a fixed-price type contract permits an equitable and sensible allocation of program risk between the Government and the contractor; and          (*3*) A written determination that the criteria of paragraphs (b)(ii)(A)( *1*) and ( *2*) of this section have been met is executed—          (*i*) By the USD(A&S) if the contract is over $25 million and is for: research and development for a non-major system; the development of a major system (as defined in FAR 2.101); or the development of a subsystem of a major system; or          (*ii*) By the contracting officer for any development not covered by paragraph (b)(ii)(A)( *3*)( *i*) of this section.          (B)  Obtain USD(A&S) approval of the Government’s prenegotiation position before negotiations begin, and obtain USD(A&S) approval of the negotiated agreement with the contractor before the agreement is executed, for any action that is—          (*1*)  An increase of more than $250 million in the price or ceiling price of a fixed-price type development contract, or a fixed-price type contract for the lead ship of a class;          (*2*)  A reduction in the amount of work under a fixed-price type development contract or a fixed-price type contract for the lead ship of a class, when the value of the work deleted is $100 million or more; or          (*3*)  A repricing of fixed-price type production options to a development contract, or a contract for the lead ship of a class, that increases the price or ceiling price by more than $250 million for equivalent quantities.    **235.006-70 Manufacturing Technology Program.****235.006-71 Competition.****Parent topic:** Part 235 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
Exhibit 10.1


                    Documentation of coorperative intentions


         Pursuant to relevant laws and  regulations of the People's  Republic of

China,  Tongxiang  Hygiene  School  (hereinafter  referred  to as "Side  A") and

American  Neurotech  Development  Ltd.  (The  corporation  possesses  authorized

certificate of the World Council of Peoples for the United Nations,  hereinafter

referred  to as "Side B"), in the  principle  of  friendly  coorperation,  about

setting up Tongxiang Nursing College,  after repeated  coordinations,  reach the

following intensions in Tongxiang Zhejiang China on November 10th.

     1.  Project name: Tongxiang Nursing college (temporary name)

     2.  Project scale: The total investment amount: $15,000,000.  Planning land

         occupation: 11 hectares. Class number: 36. Student number: 1800.

     3.  Aims of coorperation: Utilizing financing arranged by the World Council

         of  Peoples  for the  United  Nations  to  establish  an  international

         standard  nursing  college in  Tongxiang,  to cultivate  students  with

         specialized nursing certificates.

     4.  Way of coorperation:  Side B is responsible for project  application to

         the World  Council  of  Peoples  for the  United  Nations,  to  finance

         $15,000,000  to be utilized as project funds (These funds don't need to

<PAGE>

         be repaid by Side A). Side A is  responsible  for affording  $3,000,000

         (about RMB  25,000,000)  to be used as cash deposit of  performing  the

         agreement of the project.  Detailed operation methods will be discussed

         later.

     5.  Plan and facilities:  Side A put forward the general  requirements  and

         design plan. The Planning and Budgetary  Committee formed by Side A and

         Side  B  is  in  charge  of  checking   them.  All  the  equipment  and

         installations must be complete new and advanced, and should be selected

         based upon competitive bids.

     6.  Ownership  of  the  facility:  After  completion  of the  project,  the

         ownership of the facility belongs to Side A.

     7.  Duration for the project: ten years.



Signature of Side A Representative:   /s/ (Signature in Chinese)




Signature of Side B Representative:   /s/ Lawrence Artz, vice president
                                      Neurotech Development Corp.

<PAGE>
EX-10.15



 EXHIBIT 10.15 

DESCRIPTION OF HORIZON BANCORP 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN 

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Horizon Bancorp (the “Company”) adopted an
Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) in 2003 after consultations with a nationally recognized executive compensation consulting firm. The Plan permits executive officers to earn as a bonus a percentage of their salary based on the
achievement of corporate and individual goals in the relevant year. Participants in the Plan are not eligible to participate in the Company’s annual discretionary bonus plan. To receive a bonus under the Plan, the executive officer must be
employed by the Company or one of its subsidiaries on the date the annual bonus payment is made and must not be subject to a performance warning or suspension. The Committee may adjust and amend the Plan at any time in their sole discretion. 

At the beginning of each year, the Committee establishes the minimum earnings target the Company must achieve before any bonuses will be paid
out under the Plan for that year. The Committee also approves a target bonus matrix for each executive officer to be used to calculate the executive officer’s bonus (if any) for the year (assuming that the minimum earnings target has been met).
The matrix for each executive officer specifies the performance measures applicable to the executive officer, the targets for each performance measure and the weight to be assigned to each performance measure in calculating the bonus if the
specified target levels are achieved. 
 Each executive officer has the opportunity to earn a bonus under the Plan of up to a specified
percentage of his base salary. Each of the executive officers has as a performance goal the achievement of a specified level of corporate net income for the year. The matrix for each of the executive officers also specifies from three to five other
performance measures, each of which is dependent upon the executive officer’s areas of responsibilities and varies from year to year to reflect changes in the primary responsibilities of the office that the executive officer holds. 

The percentage of base salary that may be earned and the weighting of performance goals are disclosed each year in the “Compensation
Discussion and Analysis” section of the Company’s Proxy Statement. The amounts of the bonuses paid each year under the Plan are reported in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation”
column of the Summary Compensation Table included in the Company’s Proxy Statement. 

  
 162
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 73074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2079-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

November 18, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC...............  Docket No. ER11-2079-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is December 7, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail [email protected] or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29840 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

 v. )

) 2:06cr169-WKW 

WILLIAM EARL ULMER )

O R D E R

The defendant by consent has appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge and has

entered a plea of guilty. The Magistrate Judge accepted the plea of guilty and has adjudicated the

defendant guilty. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Sentencing of the defendant is hereby set on January 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., Courtroom

2-E, of the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street,

Montgomery, Alabama.

2. In accordance with Rule 32(f)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, counsel for the

defendant and the Government shall communicate in writing to the probation officer, and to each

other, any objections they have as to any material information, sentencing classifications, sentencing

guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the presentence report. The

probation officer will notify parties of the objection deadline and will schedule a conference to

discuss and resolve, if possible, any factual and legal issues contained in the presentence report.

3. Any motion for downward departure shall be filed on or before the conference date with

the probation officer, unless based on unknown and unforeseen circumstances arising after that date,

in which case the motion must be filed promptly upon discovery of such circumstances.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as impairing the rights of any party as

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 30th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 439 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
## NO. 12-08-00346-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: MICH

AEL KE NNEDY, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Relator Micha el Kenne dy seeks a writ of manda mus requiring the tri al court to enter a summary judgment in Kennedy’ s favor in a civil rights a ction pending in the 369th Judicial District Court of Ander son County, Texas. Mandamus is an e xtraordina ry re medy and wa s intended to be a vailable “only in sit uations involving manifest and urge nt nece ssity and not for grievanc es that may be addre ssed by other
reme dies.” Walker v. Pac ker , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proc eeding) . For Kenne dy to be entitled to r elief by mandamus, he must mee t two require ments. First, he must show that the trial court c lear ly abused its discretion. Id . Second, he must show that he lacks an a dequate reme dy at law, suc h as an or dinary a ppeal. See id

. He re , Ke nn e dy re qu e sts that we dir e c t the tr ia l cou rt to enter a summary judgment in his f avor. Howeve r, mandamus cannot be used to tell the trial court how to rule. See In re Cas tle Pr od . L td. P’ship , 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. A pp.–Tyler 2006, orig. pr oc e e din g) . A c c or din gly , th e pe tit ionfo r w ri t of ma nd a mus is denied . Opinion delivere d September 10, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINCENT L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 4:20cv574-MW/MAF

RICK KEARNEY, and

BRET OGLESBY,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 4. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, 

is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The 

Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 25, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00574-MW-MAF Document 5 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit






AMENDMENT NO. 5


to


CONSULTING AGREEMENT
dated May 3, 2012


by and between
AXIS Specialty Limited (the “Company”)
and
Michael A. Butt (the “Consultant”)


Dated December 7, 2017


WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant entered into a consulting agreement dated as of May 3, 2012, as amended (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of AXIS Capital Holdings Limited, the Company and the Consultant have determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to make certain revisions to the Agreement in order to further extend the term of service thereof;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of the date hereof, as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 3 of the Agreement (Consulting Fee) is hereby amended to insert the following after “April 2018.”:




“For service from the date of the Annual General Meeting of AXIS Capital Holdings Limited in 2018 through the Annual General Meeting of AXIS Capital Holdings Limited in 2019, the Company shall pay the Consultant a fee in the amount of $500,000 payable in the amount of $125,000 no later than the first business day of July and October 2018 and January and April 2019.”  
		
	2.
	Section 4 of the Agreement (Consulting Term) is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “2018” with “2019”.




		
	3.
	Section 8 of the Agreement (Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation) is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “May 31, 2019” in the last line thereof and replacing such reference with “May 31, 2020”.




		
	4.
	Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.   




                                               











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


AXIS Specialty Limited




By:  /s/ Joseph Henry
Title:  Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer             




Consultant




/s/ Michael A. Butt


2
#### § 761.5 Restrictions on lobbying.

A person who applies for or receives a loan made or guaranteed by the Agency must comply with the restrictions on lobbying in 2 CFR part 418.

[72 FR 63285, Nov. 8, 2007, as amended at 79 FR 75996, Dec. 19, 2014]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL CHAPA
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1919

[October 4, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472011CF000438A

.

Jeffrey H. Garland of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR
, C IKLIN and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Lee Jackson, Appellant.

Decision reserved and case remitted to Brie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: It is now firmly established that the practice here followed—where there appeared to have been no imperative circumstances necessitating such procedure— of having the three eyewitnesses to the robbery view,, for identification purposes only, the very suspect whom the police had taken into custody for the crime may be “ *‘*so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification’” as to amount to a denial of due process of law *(People*v. *Brown,*20 N Y 2d 238, 244). Moreover, “ once the pretrial identification procedure is shown to be impermissible and improper, any in-court identifications, though not per se excludable, are not to be received in evidence *‘*without first determining that they were not tainted by the illegal lineup but were of independent origin ’ ”. *(People*v. *Ballott,*20 N Y 2d 600, 606; *People*v. *Ahmed,*20 N Y 2d 958.) The case is remitted for a hearing where the People must prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the witnesses’ in-court identification was not tainted by the improper showup in the police station (cf. *People*v. *Hill,*22 N Y 2d 686). (Appeal from judgment of Brie County Court convicting defendant of robbery, second degree.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.