alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 966.18 Export.

*Export* means shipment of tomatoes beyond the boundaries of the 48 contiguous States (including the District of Columbia) of the United States.

[34 FR 19186, Dec. 4, 1969]
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 15 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 4 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LEONARDO CARO TERRAZAS, 

ASELMO PARRA CASTILLO, 

ANTIONIO BOJORQUEZ ROSAS, 

CARLOS ARTURO CEVANTES 

HERNANDEZ, CESAR QUINTANA 

MARTINEZ, BERNARDO CARO 

MONGES, GANADERA SANTA SOFIA, 

HECTOR HUGO VARGAS VASQUEZ, 

INTERGANADERA FAMFLO S.P.R. de 

R.L. de C.V., JESUS IGNACIO 

ARMENDARIZ TORRES, JESUS 

MENDOZA ROMERO, JESUS 

MANUEL PARRA CHAVEZ, JOSE G. 

VILLALOBOS VILLALOBOS, 

MANUEL ARMANDO GONZALEZ 

CARMONA, NICOLAS 

CAROTERRAZAS, OSCAR TENA 

LOCANO, OSCAR CHACON 

HERRERA, RAFAEL RUIZ 

HERNANDEZ, RANCHO LOS 

TATOLEROS S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V.,

ROGELIO CAMACHO ARMENDARIZ, 

SOCORRO MONTES VARGAS, 

RANCHO BLANCO DE CHAVEZ, 

AGRICOLA Y GANDERA ZAZUETA 

S.A. de C.V., CANDELARIO MOLINA 

RETANA, CARLOS DUARTE VILLA, 

GELACIO LECHUGA VALDEZ, JOSE 

MIGUEL NEVAREZ, JUAN MANUEL 

MENDOZA, JESUS PESQIERA 

GASELUM, EUGENIO RIVERA TENA, 

AGRICOLA GANADERA LOS 

MOLINAS, ADAN HERNANDEZ DIAZ, 

ALEJANDRO PORRAS DUARTE, 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00206-CV

Appeal from the

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV4635)
2

ANDREA VALLES VACA, 

CANDELARIO MOLINA RETANA, 

CARLOS DUARTE VILLA, CORNELIO 

RIVERA RIVAS, ERNESTO MERAZ 

OLIVAS, FRUTI GANA-DERA de RL de 

CV, GANADERA DOBLE O, 

GERARDO GARCIA ANAYA, 

GUILLERMO OLIVAS RODRIGUEZ 

DE LOS DOS, JOSE ANTONIO MERAZ 

OLIVAS, JOSE MARTA MERAZ 

HERNANDEZ, JUAN JOSE GARCIA 

VALDEZ, LEONARDO CARO 

TERRAZAS, LUIS ARMANDO 

ESTRADA CASTELLANOS, ROGELIO 

CAMACHO, SERGIO SOLIS CHAVEZ, 

and SERGIO VILLALOBOS,

 Appellants,

v.

SIMON CHAVEZ a/k/a SIMON 

CHAVEZ DE PABLO, individually and 

d/b/a 24 TRADING CO., ALVARO 

BUSTILLOS, and VAQUERO 

TRADING, L.L.C.,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 31, 2019, Appellants filed a late notice of appeal in this case, but within the 15-

day grace period provided by TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. We treated the late notice as having been 

accompanied by an implied motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal and asked 

Appellants to provide an explanation for the filing delay. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 

615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellants subsequently filed a verified motion for extension of time to file 

a late notice of appeal, which the Court granted. Appellants have now filed a motion to dismiss 

the appeal under TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1), stating that they no longer wish to pursue this appeal.
3

The motion to dismiss is unopposed.

We grant the Appellants’ motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed 

against the Appellants. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

September 25, 2019

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
(May 28, 1969)

#### May M. Peters, Respondent, v. Russel Peters, Appellant.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County which, in a proceeding commenced by petitioner-respondent wife under article 4 of the Family Court Act, directed appellant husband to *727pay $30 weekly for the support of petitioner “pending a final determination and until the entry of a final order herein”. The record before us provides no basis for disturbing the Family Court’s action in granting the preliminary and interim relief of which appellant complains. This proceeding was commenced during the pendency of a divorce action between the parties. Appellant questions the identity of respondent as the woman whom .he married in 1934 and from whom he has 'been separated since 1935; questions, also, the finding of the Family Court, upon which its jurisdiction to act during the pendency of the divorce action depends, that petitioner is “likely to become in need of public assistance or care ” (Family Ct. Act, § 464, subd. [b]); and urges that petitioner’s inaction for 34 years should “ bar ” relief in the Family Court until after trial in Supreme Court of the divorce action. The Family Court made it abundantly clear that the order appealed from is temporary and that final determination of the proceeding will be deferred until such time as the issues in the Supreme Court action shall be adjudicated; and urged counsel to proceed promptly in that action and to request a trial preference pursuant to the agreement of the attorneys for the defendant husband to join in an application therefor. We, too, consider that counsel should apply without further delay for a prompt disposition of the matrimonial action. In thé event of petitioner’s failure to make such an application promptly, the Family Court would be warranted in entertaining an application to modify or stay the order appealed from. Order affirmed, with costs, and stay vacated. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gibson, P. J.
924.103 Procedures.       (b)(2) The Department of Energy rules and regulations on Privacy Act are implemented under 10 CFR part 1008.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 924.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3321 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on stoppers, lids, and other 

closures. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on stoppers, 

lids, and other closures. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STOPPERS, LIDS, AND OTHER CLOSURES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.33 (relating to 

5 stoppers, lids, and other closures) of the Harmonized Tar6 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking 

7 the date in the effective period column and inserting

8 ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3321 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.14



Five9, Inc.
2018 Executive Bonus Program


On February 8, 2018, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Five9, Inc. (the “Company”) approved performance targets for the year ending December 31, 2018 that will be used to determine the amount of cash bonus awards that may be earned, on a quarterly basis, by the Company’s Section 16 officers pursuant to the Company’s 2018 bonus program (the “2018 Bonus Program”).  


Funding of the 2018 Bonus Program will be based upon the Company’s financial performance and each officer’s individual performance for each quarter in the year ending December 31, 2018, using a weighting of 75% for Company financial performance and 25% for individual performance for each executive officer other than the (i) Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and (ii) President.  The Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer’s bonus will be funded 100% based upon Company financial performance.  The President’s bonus will be funded 50% based on sales commissions and 37.5% based on Company financial performance, and 12.5% based on his individual performance.  Financial performance will be based upon the Company’s achievement of predetermined revenue and adjusted EBITDA targets using a weighting of 80% for performance achieved against the revenue target and 20% for performance achieved against the adjusted EBITDA target.  Achievement below 90% of the revenue target or 80% of the adjusted EBITDA target, would result in no cash payout with respect to such target.  Achievement up to 125% of the revenue target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 150% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the revenue target.  Achievement up to 150% of the adjusted EBITDA target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 150% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the adjusted EBITDA target.  In the event that the Company’s actual adjusted EBITDA is below 80% of the adjusted EBITDA target, the maximum cash payout for achieving the revenue target will be 100% of the revenue target bonus.


Below are the annual target bonus levels under the 2018 Bonus Program for the Company’s listed Section 16 officers:  
	
							
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name
	 
	Annual Target Bonus
(USD)
	 
	Annual Target Bonus as a Percentage of Base Salary

	Barry Zwarenstein
	 
	$
	275,000
	 
	 
	75%

	Daniel Burkland
	 
	$
	325,000
	 
	 
	81%

	Scott Welch
	 
	$
	164,000
	 
	 
	50%

	Gaurav Passi
	 
	$
	164,000
	 
	 
	50%
# Subpart 2931.1 - Applicability

**Parent topic:**PART 2931 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

## 2931.101 Objectives.

Individual and class deviations from cost principles in FAR part 31 must be processed as prescribed in DOLAR subpart 2901.4.
# 5234.7002 Policy.

****(a)(1)(i) Submit the required written determination for          approval by the Secretary of Defense/Deputy Secretary of Defense accompanied by a proposed          Congressional notification letter satisfying the requirements at DFARS 234.7002(a)(1)(ii)          and a copy of the approved AS, STRAP, or MOPAS-S to DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 234.7002(a)(i) - D&F: Approval to Acquire a Major Weapon System          as a Commercial Item.” 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5234.70 - ACQUISITION OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS AS COMMERCIAL ITEMS
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JILL K. SIEVEKING ACTING DIRECTOR OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES STATE HOUSE 107 NORTH MAIN STREET, ROOM 109 CONCORD, NEW

HAMPSHIRE 03301-4951 May 26, 2011 

### Received from Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services the following certified rule(s) filed with the Director of Legislative Services, in accordance with RSA 541-A, the Administrative Procedures Act . 

### Document # #9933 Relative to: Env-A 1200 (formerly Env-A 1204) - Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Reasonably

Available Control Technology (PACT) . Number of Pages: Adopted Date: Filing Date: . Effective Date: Expiration Date: 

### Notes: N/A 

### 77

05-26-11 05-26-11 06-01-11 06/01/2019 In all communications with this off ice concerning the above rule(s), please cite the appropriate document number, as indicated above.

Jill K. Sieveking, Acting Director Office of Legislative Services

TDDAccess: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 DIRECTOR (603) 271-3432 RESEARCH (603) 271-3326 LEGAL STAFF (603) 271-3435 FAX : (603) 271-6607 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (603) 271-3680
G:\wpusers\LRB\Cascades-Evans-DE Ent 2210\Zurich Ins - 003\p- response to motion to stay.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

D E ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a )

CASCADES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-00692-VPM

)

ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ASSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA’S MOTION TO STAY

COME NOW the Plaintiff, DE Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Cascades Development Group, LLC

(hereinafter “Cascades”), and in response to Defendant’s Motion to Stay provides as follows:

1. Plaintiff does not object to this matter being stayed pending the outcome of the

related State Court Action; however, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow discovery

to proceed along with the discovery in the related State Court Action.

2. Discovery is currently ongoing in the State Court Action. It would be an inefficient

use of this Court’s time to stay discovery in this matter. Plaintiff anticipates that the

discovery in both cases will be similar, if not identical, as the issues involved

overlap. As the Defendant stated in its motion, resolution of the issues involved in

the present case will be dependent on the resolution of the issues in the State Court

Action. As a result, it would be unnecessary for the Court to stay discovery in this

matter when the discovery in this matter could be completed concurrently with the

remaining discovery to be completed in the State Court Action. Not only will this

Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
G:\wpusers\LRB\Cascades-Evans-DE Ent 2210\Zurich Ins - 003\p- response to motion to stay.wpd

utilize this Court’s time more efficiently, but will also be in the best interest of all of

the parties involved. 

3. Allowing discovery to proceed while staying the remainder of the litigation is in the

best interest of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination

of the litigation. 

4. No prejudice would occur to the Defendant if the Court allows discovery to proceed.

 /s/ Amy M. Hazelton 

Lee R. Benton (ASB-8421-E63L)

Amy M. Hazelton (ASB-4742-Y81M)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 10 day of January, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with th

the Clerk of the Court using the CM-ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all

parties requesting electronic service.

Thomas M. O’Hara 

Anne Laurie Smith 

McDOWELL KNIGHT ROEDDER & SLEDGE, L.L.C.

P. O. Box 35

Mobile, Alabama 36601

/s/ Amy M. Hazelton 

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00692-WHA-WC Document 11 Filed 01/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
# 7.107-2 Consolidation.

(a) The HCA is the approval authority for consolidation determination and findings (D&F). The DISA Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) shall review the D&F prior to being routed to the HCA for signature.

**Parent topic:**SUBPART 7.1 –– ACQUISITION PLANS
§ 984.67 Exemptions. ( a ) *Exemptions from assessments and quality regulations* — ( 1 ) *Sales by growers direct to consumers.* Any walnut grower may handle walnuts of his production free of the regulatory and assessment provisions of this part if he sells such walnuts in the area of production directly to consumers under the following types of exemptions: ( i ) At roadside stands and farmers' markets;
( ii ) In quantities not exceeding an aggregate of 500 pounds of inshell walnuts or 200 pounds of shelled walnuts during any marketing year (at locations other than those specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section); and
( iii ) If shipped by parcel post or express in quantities not exceeding 10 pounds of inshell walnuts or 4 pounds of shelled walnuts to any one consumer in any one calendar day.
( 2 ) *Green walnuts.* Walnuts which are green and which are so immature that they cannot be used for drying and sale as dried walnuts may be handled without regard to the provisions of this part.
( 3 ) *Noncompetitive outlets.* Any person may handle walnuts, free of the provisions of this part, for use by charitable institutions, relief agencies, governmental agencies for school lunch programs, and diversion to animal feed or oil manufacture pursuant to an authorized governmental diversion program.
( b ) *Rules and modifications.* The Board may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such rules, regulations and safeguards and such modifications as will promote the objectives of this subpart.
[27 FR 9094, Sept. 13, 1962, as amended at 41 FR 31544, July 29, 1976; 73 FR 11339, Mar. 3, 2008; 85 FR 27109, May 7, 2020; 88 FR 56749, Aug. 21, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Christopher Jones, Appellant, v. New York State Board of Parole et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed and proceeding remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Appellant applied for the issuance of an order to show cause directed to respondents. The petition set forth sufficient facts to warrant institution of the proceeding. Special Term, however, declined to sign the show cause order and dismissed the petition upon a holding that there was “no merit to this application.” Upon this appeal respondents attempt to meet the issues tendered in the petition by a lengthly recital in their brief of the pertinent facts. This, of course, is not sufficient to meet the allegations in the verified petition. The proceeding is remitted with *740leave to respondents to file a verified answer together with such documentary proof as they may elect to submit. Thereafter the tendered issues should be decided. (Appeal from order of Cayuga Supreme Court denying petition to be credited with time served.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
#### § 958.82 Right of the Secretary.

The members of the committee (including successors and alternates) and any agent or employee appointed or employed by the committee shall be subject to removal or suspension by the Secretary at any time. Each and every order, regulation, decision, determination, or other act of the committee shall be subject to the continuing right of the Secretary to disapprove of the same at any time. Upon such disapproval, the disapproved action of the said committee shall be deemed null and void except as to acts done in reliance thereon or in compliance therewith prior to such disapproval by the Secretary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7827

CORNELIUS A. TUCKER, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00171-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Cornelius A. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Cornelius A. Tucker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

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

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

further deny as moot Tucker’s motion for bail or release pending 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### § 987.15 Substandard dates.

*Utility dates* means those dates which fail to meet the requirements for marketable dates but are not cull dates.

[27 FR 6818, July 19, 1962, as amended at 43 FR 4251, Feb. 1, 1978]
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3141

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Carson Arcia

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: May 21, 2019

Filed: May 24, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Carson Arcia directly appeals after he pled guilty to production of child

pornography, under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district
court1

sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated Guidelines range. His

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Arcia’s sentence. The

government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid,

enforceable, and applicable to this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,

704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver);

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver

will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and

voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not

result in miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for

appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the

government’s motion, dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and grant

counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 
  





 
 March 28, 2017 
 Charles
“Chip” Schneider 
 Chip.Schneider@rig.net 

Dear Chip: 
 It is with pleasure that I extend to you a Retention
Bonus in the amount of one times of your current base pay of $325,000.00 to be paid in two equal installments. 
 You will receive the payments based on the
following payment schedule to be paid not later than the dates listed. 
  

	 	a.	March 31, 2018 in the amount of $162,500.00 

  

	 	b.	March 31, 2019 in the amount of $162,500.00 

 This offering is in recognition and appreciation of your
continued focus on driving overall success; as well as to recognize your efforts in the expanded role and the additional responsibilities that you have taken over since joining RigNet. I appreciate your hard work and dedication to the company. 

Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Steven Pickett

	Steven Pickett
	Chief Executive Officer and President
	RigNet Inc.

 15115 PARK ROW, SUITE 300 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77094 PHONE 281.674.0100 FAX 281.674.0101 http://www.rig.net