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

As used in this partAdjusted hourly rate (including uncompensated overtime) is the rate that results from multiplying

the hourly rate for a 40-hour work week by 40, and then dividing by the proposed hours per week

which includes uncompensated overtime hours over and above the standard 40-hour work week. For

example, 45 hours proposed on a 40-hour work week basis at $20 per hour would be converted to an

uncompensated overtime rate of $17.78 per hour ($20.00 x 40 / 45 = $17.78).

Child care services means child protective services (including the investigation of child abuse and

neglect reports), social services, health and mental health care, child (day) care, education (whether

or not directly involved in teaching), foster care, residential care, recreational or rehabilitative

programs, and detention, correctional, or treatment services.

Nonpersonal services contract means a contract under which the personnel rendering the services

are not subject, either by the contract’s terms or by the manner of its administration, to the

supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the Government and its

employees.

Service contract means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose

primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. A

service contract may be either a nonpersonal or personal contract. It can also cover services

performed by either professional or nonprofessional personnel whether on an individual or

organizational basis. Some of the areas in which service contracts are found include the following:

(1) Maintenance, overhaul, repair, servicing, rehabilitation, salvage, modernization, or modification

of supplies, systems, or equipment.

(2) Routine recurring maintenance of real property.

(3) Housekeeping and base services.

(4) Advisory and assistance services.

(5) Operation of Government-owned equipment, real property, and systems.

(6) Communications services.

(7) Architect-Engineering (see subpart 36.6).

(8) Transportation and related services (see part 47).

(9) Research and development (see part 35).

Uncompensated overtime means the hours worked without additional compensation in excess of an

average of 40 hours per week by direct charge employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor

Standards Act. Compensated personal absences such as holidays, vacations, and sick leave shall be

included in the normal work week for purposes of computing uncompensated overtime hours.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.1 - Service Contracts-General
§ 66.404 Hearing. ( a ) Within 30 days of receiving the results of an audit or examination of records or similar activity to which the entity that was the subject of the investigation objects, the entity may request a hearing by filing a request, along with the entity's response to the findings and any supporting documents, with AMS.
( b ) The response to the findings of the audit or examination of records or similar activity must identify any objection to the findings and the basis for the objection.
( c ) The AMS Administrator or designee will review the findings of the audit or examination of records or similar activity, the response, and any supporting documents, and may allow the entity that was the subject of the investigation to make an oral presentation.
( d ) At the conclusion of the hearing, the AMS Administrator or designee may revise the findings of the audit or examination of records or similar activity.
#### § 927.103 Organically produced pears.

*Organically produced pears* means pears that have been certified by an organic certification organization currently registered with the Oregon or Washington State Departments of Agriculture, or such certifying organization accredited under the National Organic Program.
**EXHIBIT 31**

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10–K of Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-AR8 Trust(the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a  materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10–D for theperiod covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Date:  March 15, 2007

  /s/ Thomas G. LehmannName:  Thomas G. LehmannTitle:    President
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.28








A G C O   C O R P O R A T I O N


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
for
NON -  EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(as of January 1, 2018)






	
		
	Retainers  (1)
	USD

	 
	 

	Annual Lead Director Retainer (paid only to Lead Director):
	30,000

	 
	 

	Annual Director Base Retainer (applies to all Directors):
	100,000

	 
	 

	Annual Committee Chairperson Retainer:  
(except Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chair)
	15,000

	 
	 

	Annual Audit Committee Chairperson Retainer:   
	25,000

	 
	 

	Annual Compensation Committee Chairperson Retainer:
	20,000

	 
	 

	Additional Annual Retainer for Board Members serving on three committees:
	6,000

	 
	 

	Additional Compensation
	 

	 
	 

	Annual AGCO Stock Grant Award (2)
	120,000




    


In addition, the Company will reimburse directors for the reasonable out-of-pocket expense incurred in the attendance of the meeting.












                  
    










Page 1 of 2









A G C O   C O R P O R A T I O N


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
for
NON - EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(as of January 1, 2018)










Notes:


		
	1)
	Payments of annual retainers are made in accordance with the following provisions:








		
	I)
	Annual Retainers are paid quarterly in four installments (for ease of calculation purposes quarters are divided into 90 days with a 360 day year).


		
	II)
	Annual Retainers accrue as of the first day of each calendar quarter based on the Board and Committee Membership Roster in effect on that date.


		
	III)
	Annual Retainers are paid in advance during the first month of the given calendar quarter (e.g., January for the first quarter).


		
	IV)
	Changes to Board and Committee Memberships (including Chairpersons) will be reviewed and adjustments made to current quarter’s retainer amounts (up or down).


		
	V)
	Any changes in the Retainer amounts due for the current quarter will be reflected in the ensuing quarter’s retainer payment.  






2) Terms applicable to the Stock Grant Award are defined in the Plan Document. The stock grant equivalent to USD 120,000 is based on closing price on the day of the Annual Shareholders’ meeting.


































Page 2 of 2
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Part 252 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

Part 253 - FORMS

Parent topic: Subchapter H - CLAUSES AND FORMS
1Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 03-10766

SUMMARY CALENDAR

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DAVID VALDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

______________________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(2:02-CR-00074-ALL)

______________________________________________________________________________

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1

We review David Valdez’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to

distribute methamphetamine. Valdez argues that evidence seized during the search of his home

and statements made thereafter should be suppressed because the officers’ failure to knock and

announce their presence prior to entering his home was not justified by exigent circumstances.
-2-

We hold that the district court did not err in determining that officers in this case had a

reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would likely result in violence or the

destruction of evidence, which justified their decision based upon the following articulated facts:

(1) Valdez’s home was occupied by Delissa and Christopher Valdez, who were both on felony

probation, under federal indictment for federal drug offenses, and previously found to be in

possession of a firearm during a search of their residence three weeks prior to the execution of the

warrant at issue; (2) Delissa Valdez also had a prior arrest for possession of a firearm; (3)

surveillance of David Valdez’s home the night before the search at issue revealed behavior

indicative of drug trafficking; (4) a confidential informant indicated the man in control of the

premises was in possession of a large amount of methamphetamine; and (5) methamphetamine

users are typically more violent than users of other illegal drugs. See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520

U.S. 385, 387 (1997); United States v. Banks, 124 S.Ct. 521, 525 (2003). For the foregoing

reasons, we uphold the conviction.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

SONJA E. WHITLOW, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-655-MEF

)

JUDGE DENSON, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by the

petitioner (Court Doc. No. 2), and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby GRANTED. 

Done this 28th day of July, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00655-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Bank of America, NA (U.S.A.), Intervenor-Appellee, v. Husam SAMARAH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50306.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 22, 2007.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Peter A. Frandsen, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Ronald L. Gruzen, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Intervenor-Appellee.

Husam Samarah, Butner, NC, pro se.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*449MEMORANDUM **

Husam Samarah appeals pro se from the district court’s order for immediate payment of funds to Bank of America (“Bank”), one of the victims of Samarah’s bank fraud offense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Samarah challenges the Bank’s participation in obtaining the district court’s order for payment of proceeds to the Bank from a property sale, to be credited towards the amount of restitution ordered when Samarah was convicted of bank fraud. We are unpersuaded, because the proceedings to obtain this payment were conducted in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3664.

We deny Samarah’s motion for extension of time to file a reply brief.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
A/ 1 E 5 774 75

P/i7-ef7 &i1e7

,1 / '/e 'sr/r. o f

3AAJ 5,Lq7441

// ELRApUL, -?1'-C69i11ê-F C COL1

gtieitid%,ti ,7 5,1pLE 1TRICT ALA

/'

5flb4j5 1 tz, ),^m,s3-1e-/ ç 229/

)C,fYr /(-/

/4I Nvc1fl7eer ô q i ye Be ei/ /

,z2XyeI -i1t&fC /24 C14-77O /. /%1⁄4(6ty U'4 y A

iJ ) 1w4rs '-'' /9 op €"/t ,, &-cic &4s

O 1/I c) Jd 57ec- 

"j'? 1/a L -

Z 4)a5 5eoe/Q/ f/k, e'c fr'-eJ

, -A;r , '&4/e.. Z >4 ui'ryrjr

c—

Au" z ,ti j,( f1nJecj k/i Io >'- '-e

jm,u D4'^ 4- ñ /AiJyi' lila L >1 ci orfi*>j

k 1J'.. J4?cc a-' //J 67 5,4 unO r-'o &j

at /1174 / Ac ,I

/'ry,y hiL do 56 4e'

.t-'o -/. )

, 7Z 4 /j ,2/O 7'

&c h/42 i hJ

(/4 y £4

&52'J

cdi %-'e- my 7/ 2/

4/eu

w

Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 1 of 4
1)1i'O(- L'/ 1/ r 1LJ4J

Z P/E7 1 4y 1e/5 L0

%e' i(-A t W X Liac. T'n /i-'

4Vd'Jd i'//.vc//q /9X

44) -' 9i^c r o17 eie'J /' frei'z

I4 /r 7 I , oc e,-'

4Zd 57'// /Jo

'-67 >e 4'- /4 'e A-do

,Le/p %' #S r pie C4/. ?/ Q4

1u/j 42

,'4 J-'i"/j D'5 i 1 c r€aQ b,'i

, peii/'/7 ia(

iipc // spek. 1 i(e '-r zV

59f 6ed )L/ 4j

-i /e25 /n 1 Lt 7'7

/A J

,vj,,i-id a 1I'ey,i Ørc'ç / 4 y c-ra4

/m/7ic ,, M ,J 7/;7:. ,2

,ii

'' ' '2 e 'i

•7s2, 'dk-€c o,ihc >21

,&,ec/4' ^L#0

eF z

2-I1ci ( L. 3oi7

Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 2 of 4
7Z ;- /4s 4(-r 4L a,/

L4 4/ 3If /y i'.-í cv€O i

(' W^i3ie c: vg,ee€ "f i; ,A4

/41 )44t

&5

?_) ('

'

I

Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 3 of 4
(Wø?ew 2z3'O'

1 p. tz L/

4'

(1⁄4r

Jvi42 7fE oii'r Coc"Y

p71/

.

J,/O/- 077/

I 1 11h1fl 1fltI I11I 11 utl ull i t ,LIt IIi

Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 19 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 4 of 4
ex_106374.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.28


 


DIRECTOR FEE SUMMARY


 


Set forth below is a summary of the director fee arrangements for non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (“Mercantile”). The directors' annual retainer fees are paid in the form of stock rather than in cash. In addition, an annual retainer fee is paid to each director who serves as Chairman of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee.


 


	 	 	
			Number of Shares

				 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Board of Directors

				 	 	750	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			Committee Chairs:

				 	 	 	 
	
			Audit

				 	 	350	 
	
			Compensation

				 	 	250	 
	
			Governance and Nominating

				 	 	150	 



 


 


Our non-employee directors are paid a meeting fee of $800 for each meeting of the Mercantile Board of Directors that they attend, and $750 for each regular meeting of the Bank's Board of Directors and $700 for any other meeting of the Bank’s Board of Directors that they attend. In addition, non-employee directors are paid a meeting fee of $800 for each executive session, $700 for each meeting of the Audit Committee and $600 for each meeting of the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee that they attend. For meetings that were held by telephone or other remote communications equipment, the meeting fees are one-half the amount described above. 


 


Under the Bank’s deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors, Mercantile directors who are also directors of the Bank may elect to defer the receipt of meeting fees until they are no longer serving on the Board or until specific dates that they select. Directors are eligible to receive stock-based awards under the Stock Incentive Plan of 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEMETRIUS LEE BATTLE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5494/LAC/ZCB

JOSHUA A. SPEER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on March 23,

2023. (Doc. 52). The Court furnished the plaintiff 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 magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The eight “Doe” Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.

1

Case 3:20-cv-05494-LC-ZCB Document 57 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 2
3. This case is recommitted to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2023.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:20-cv-05494-LC-ZCB Document 57 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 2
(June 30, 1970)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James J. Cerio, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for not to exceed three years and as so modified affirmed. Memorandum: Upon his *1096plea of guilty to the fourth count only of his indictment, to wit, sodomy in the second degree in violation of section 130.45 of the Penal Law, that is, engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years old, defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment for a maximum of seven years. Defendant’s acts were done with the knowledge of the child’s father and mother, who pled guilty, respectively, to promoting prostitution in the first degree and endangering the morals of a child. The parents were both sentenced on the same day that sentence was pronounced upon defendant, the father being sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years’ imprisonment and the mother to a one-year term of imprisonment in the Seneca County jail. Defendant contends that the serious nature of his crime should be treated with less severity because he was encouraged in it by the parents, that the offenses of the parents so aroused the court’s ire that an excessive sentence was given to him, and also that under his circumstances, the punishment is not corrective nor beneficial to society but is vindictive. We find nothing in the record to support defendant’s contention that he was enticed into his offensive conduct, and nothing in mitigation of the seriousness thereof. Any ire exhibited by the sentencing Judge was fully understandable. The probation report, however, reveals that defendant, a man 60 years of age, is industrious, has a good job and conscientiously supports his family, and that he is of sound mind and is not a danger to the community. Imprisonment, therefore, should be meted out with a view to “ the rehabilitation of the defendant as a useful and responsible member of the community ” *(People*v. *Silver,*10 A D 2d 274, 276; and see *People*v. *Cotter,*25 A D 2d 609). Under the circumstances of this defendant we find in the exercise of our discretion that the sentence imposed is excessive and that imprisonment for an indeterminate term not to exceed three years is appropriate (Penal Law, § 70.00, subd. 2, par. [d]; and see *People*v. *Bolton,*25 A D 2d 944; *People*v. *Mosher,*24 A D 2d 47). We are constrained to remark upon the failure of the District Attorney to submit a brief on this appeal. He has similarly failed to submit a brief in other appeals from judgments of conviction in Seneca County. We reiterate prior admonitions of this court that it is the duty of the District Attorney to represent the People on all such appeals. (See *People*v. *Holcombe,*34 A D 2d 728; *People*v. *Houston,*31 A D 2d 777; *People*v. *Wright,*22 A D 2d 754.) (Appeal from judgment of Seneca County Court convicting defendant of sodomy, second degree.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Bastow, JJ.
Continuing Abatement Order filed March 27, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00783-CV

____________

JASON FELT, CANARY FINANCIAL, INC., JONATHAN WASSERBERG, AND 

WASSERBERG INVESTMENTS, Appellants

V.

COMERICA BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-50665

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

This appeal was abated for a hearing pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 

306a. An extension of time to file the supplemental clerk's record was granted at 

appellant's request until March 19, 2010. As of this date, no record has been filed. 

The parties are directed to inform the court within ten days of the date of this order 

of the status of their 306a motion in the trial court.

This appeal remains abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court's 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court's active docket when the 
2

supplemental clerk's record is filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate 

the appeal on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM
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 the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of audio conference.

      ( print page 75694)    

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 106-148, the NCGMP Advisory Committee will hold an audio conference call on Wednesday, January 26, 2011, from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The Committee will hear updates on progress of the NCGMP toward fulfilling the purposes of the National Geological Mapping Act of 1992; the Federal, State, and education components of the NCGMP; and the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.

# DATES:

January 26, 2011, from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For the phone number and access code, please contact Stephanie Brown, U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 908, National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6948.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meetings of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Advisory Committee are open to the Public.

Dated: November 19, 2010.

Kevin T. Gallagher,

Acting Associate Director for Core Science Systems.

[FR Doc. 2010-30397 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P