alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      10.1

    


    AIRSPAN
      NETWORKS, INC.

    NON-EMPLOYEE
      DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
      PLAN

     

    Each
      of
      the non-employee directors of Airspan Networks, Inc. receives an annual retainer
      of $15,000, payable in quarterly installments, to attend in person the four
      regular meetings of the Board of Directors during the year. To the extent that
      any of the non-employee directors miss more than one of these regular meetings,
      such director will forfeit $3,750 per meeting missed. For special meetings
      of
      the Board of Directors, each non-employee director receives $1,000 for attending
      any such meeting telephonically. 

     

    The
      Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $12,500, payable
      in quarterly installments and the other members of the Audit Committee receive
      an annual retainer of $10,000, payable in quarterly installments to attend
      telephonically the five regular meetings of the Audit Committee during the
      year.
      To the extent that any of the Audit Committee members miss one of these regular
      meetings, such director will forfeit $2,500 per meeting missed. For special
      meetings of the Audit Committee, each Audit Committee member receives $500
      for
      attending any such meeting telephonically. 

     

    The
      Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $2,500,
      payable in quarterly installments. Members of the Compensation Committee receive
      $500 for attending any Compensation Committee meeting telephonically.


     

    Members
      of the Special Litigation Committee receive $500 for attending any Special
      Litigation Committee meeting telephonically. 

     

    Non-Employee
      directors are also eligible to receive, from time to time, non-qualified options
      to purchase shares of the Company’s Common Stock, when and in the amounts
      determined by the Compensation Committee.

     

    Otherwise,
      except (i) as described above and (ii) for reimbursement for reasonable travel
      expenses relating to attendance at Board meetings, non-employee directors are
      not compensated for their services as directors.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00412-CR

Christopher ACOSTA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2024CR1657

Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 4, 2024

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case, “is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal,” and “the defendant has waived the right of 

appeal.”

Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or 

nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended 

by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,
04-24-00412-CR

- 2 -

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or

(C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes 

the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written 

motion filed and ruled upon before trial, nor does it indicate the trial court gave its permission to

appeal. See id. Appellant has not identified with this court any statute that expressly authorizes 

the specific appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect 

that this is a plea-bargain case and appellant does not have a right to appeal.

We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating 

this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification was made part of the 

appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Appellant 

responded to our order, stating that the trial court denied his request to amend the certification to 

allow him to appeal. Because no amended trial court certification has been filed, we dismiss this 

appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 18, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133452 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133452 

 COA: 264419 

Ingham CC: 04-001216-FH

BRANDON LEE SMITH, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0711 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 18, 2007 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL J. BUCK

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00294

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20160D01234 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 18 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Louis Elias Lopez, Jr.

, Appellant’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 18 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 th day of May , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McCl ure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 974 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 974

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods 
  or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans.

    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 ``Boosting Rates of American Veteran 
Employment Act'' or the ``BRAVE Act''.

SEC. 2. PREFERENCE FOR OFFERORS EMPLOYING VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding after section 8128 the following new 
section:
``Sec. 8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans
    ``(a) Preference.--In awarding a contract for the procurement of 
goods or services, the Secretary may give a preference to offerors that 
employ veterans on a full-time basis. The Secretary shall determine 
such preference based on the percentage of the full-time employees of 
the offeror who are veterans.
    ``(b) Enforcement Penalties for Misrepresentation.--(1) Any offeror 
that is determined by the Secretary to have willfully and intentionally 
misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the offeror for 
purposes of subsection (a) may be debarred from contracting with the 
Department for a period of not less than 5 years.
    ``(2) If the Secretary carries out a debarment under paragraph (1), 
the Secretary shall commence debarment action against the offeror by 
not later than 30 days after determining that the offeror willfully and 
intentionally misrepresented the veteran status of the employees of the 
offeror as described in paragraph (1) and shall complete debarment 
actions against such offeror by not later than 90 days after such 
determination.
    ``(3) The debarment of an offeror under paragraph (1) includes the 
debarment of all principals in the offeror for a period of not less 
than 5 years.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
8128 the following new item:

``8129. Preference for offerors employing veterans.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 974

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods 
  or services, to give a preference to offerors that employ veterans.
```
§ 1314.101 Training of sales personnel. Each regulated person who makes a sale at retail of a scheduled listed chemical product and is required under § 1310.03(c) of this chapter to submit a report of the sales transaction to the Administration must ensure that its sales of a scheduled listed chemical product at retail are made in accordance with the following: ( a ) In the case of individuals who are responsible for preparing and packaging scheduled listed chemical products for delivery to purchasers through the Postal Service or any private or commercial carrier or who deal either directly or indirectly with purchasers by obtaining payments for the products, the regulated person has submitted to the Administration a self-certification that all such individuals have, in accordance with criteria issued by the Administration, undergone training provided by the regulated person to ensure that the individuals understand the requirements that apply under this part.
( b ) The regulated person maintains a copy of each self-certification and all records demonstrating that individuals referred to in paragraph (a) of this section have undergone the training.
[76 FR 20523, Apr. 13, 2011]
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees for the General Electric Company, Evendale, Ohio, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                         General Electric Company.                    

*Location:*                         Evendale, Ohio.                    

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors.                    

*Period of Employment:*                         January 1, 1961 through June 30, 1970.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2010-332 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
When applying for financial aid, you may need to provide tax account information from your (and/or your 

parents’) tax return or tax account transcript. A tax return transcript shows many line items contained on 

the return (1040 series) as it was originally filed, including any accompanying forms and schedules and 

any figures corrected by IRS during processing of the return. A tax account transcript includes any later 

adjustments either you or the IRS made after the tax return was originally filed. In many cases, a tax return 

transcript will meet the requirements of financial aid offices or other lending institutions offering student loans.

Get Transcript on IRS.gov gives you the option to view, save and/or print your transcript. This is the quickest 

way to obtain a tax transcript. Additionally, you can also order tax return and tax account transcripts via 

the dedicated Transcript toll-free line (800-908-9946) and through Get Transcript by Mail on IRS.gov. The 

documents are mailed to the address we have on file for you, should be received within 5-10 calendar days 

and are free of charge. 

Form 4506-T, Request for Transcript of Tax Return, can be used to get the tax return and tax account 

transcripts as well as Form W-2 information and verification of non-filing. Form 4506-T also offers a record of 

account transcript that combines the tax return and tax account transcripts. Transcripts will only be mailed to 

your address of record. The IRS does not mail transcripts to a third party. 

FOR A COPY OF TAX RETURN(S)

In some very limited instances, a copy of your (and/or your parents’) Federal Income Tax Return may be needed. 

Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return, can be used to request a copy of the tax return. There is a fee for 

each return. Please refer to the form for the amount of the fee. 

Please follow the directions on the form or automated tool for requesting a transcript. The Form 4506 or 

Form 4506-T can be downloaded from www.irs.gov or obtained by calling (800) 829-3676.

Educational 

Financial Aid? APPLYING FOR

Publication 1577 (Rev. 12-2021) Catalog Number 13370B Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service www.irs.gov
#### § 1316.55 Prehearing ruling.

The presiding officer may have the prehearing conference reported verbatim and shall make a ruling reciting the action taken at the conference, the agreements made by the parties, the schedule of witnesses, and a statement of the issues for hearing. Such ruling shall control the subsequent course of the hearing unless modified by a subsequent ruling.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 48,046

#### *In re*The Complaint made against Robert Farrell Hudson by the State Board of Law Examiners

(Bar Docket No. 4096)

(542 P. 2d 181)

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

Whereas, In a proceeding conducted by the State Board of Law Examiners to inquire into the complaint of alleged professional misconduct by Robert Farrell Hudson, and

Whereas, Following a full hearing as to such complaint, the State Board of Law Examiners found that Robert Farrell Hudson, Wichita, Kansas, failed to handle a matter in behalf of his client in an original action in the court of common pleas and in an appeal of the same action in the district court, thereby permitting default judgment to be entered against his client and subjecting his client to subsequent execution, garnishment, and proceedings in aid of execution; that he failed to carry out his professional responsibilities in a divorce action in not filing a petition and in not preparing a property settlement agreement; and that he thereby violated the following canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102 (A) (5) and (6), DR 6-101 (A) (2) and (3), and DR 7-101 (A) (2) and (3) (214 Kan. Ixxv, lxxxvii), and

Whereas, The State Board of Law Examiners made a written recommendation to this Court that said Robert Farrell Hudson be disciplined by “Suspension of the practice of law for an indefinite period” as provided by Rule No. 207 («) (3), (215 Kan. iv [Adv. Sheet No. 2]), and

Whereas, a copy of the Report, Findings, and Recommendation of the Board, along with the citation, was mailed to Robert Farrell Hudson by certified mail, pursuant to Rule No. 208 (c) (214 Kan. Iviii), and

Whereas, since more than twenty (20) days passed after the citation was mailed, and no response was received, said Robert Farrell Hudson was notified to appear before this Court on November 7, 1975, pursuant to Rule No. 208 *(d)*(214 Kan. lix) for the imposition of discipline, and

Whereas, on the 7th day of November, 1975, said Robert Farrell *217Hudson appeared in open court and was permitted to make a statement to the Court relative to the discipline to be imposed, and

By Order of the Court, dated this 12th day of November, 1975.

Whereas, on the 12th day of November, 1975, after consideration of the record and being fully advised of the premises, the Court accepts the recommendation of 'the State Board of Law Examiners.

It is, therefore, by the Court Considered, Ordered, and Adjudged that said Robert Farrell Hudson be and he is hereby disciplined by this Court by suspension of the practice of law for an indefinite period, as of the 12th day of November, 1975, and that he pay the costs of the proceeding. It is further ordered that this Order of Suspension be published in the official Kansas Reports.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7514

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CRAIG A. MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-66; CA-04-458-3) Submitted: February 28, 2006 Decided: March 23, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig A. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Craig A. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
## MAY 1 1 2016

EK-VNDEMAN ckEnActvumemisveauR
CHIEF DEPptY CrE 

### ORDER DECLINING TO IMPOSE TEMPORARY SUSPENSON IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER OF DISICIPLINE OF No. 70148 EVAN D. SCHWAB, BAR NO. 10984. 

# FOLED

This is a petition under SCR 111 concerning attorney Evan Schwab, based on a conviction for one count of driving under the influence, a misdemeanor." Because the crime is not one of those specifically enumerated in SCR 111(6) as a "serious" crime, temporary suspension and referral to the disciplinary board are discretionary with this court. SCR 111(9). The seriousness of drinking and driving cannot be minimized, however, first offense driving under the influence is not the type of offense for which professional discipline is typically imposed. 2 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., W. William Hodes, & Peter R. Jarvis, 

### The Law of Lawyering,
'According to the petition and supporting documents, Schwab pleaded guilty to the DUI charge in 2014 and, after he completed the terms and conditions of the sentence, the charge was reduced to reckless driving in 2015. Schwab apparently did not notify the State Bar as required by SCR 111(2) because he did not realize that reckless driving fell within the rule. However, the guilty plea in 2014 constituted a "conviction" for purposes of SCR 111, 

### see SCR 111(1), and since the guilty plea was to a traffic violation that involved the use of alcohol or a controlled substance, Schwab was required by SCR 111(2) to report the conviction to the State Bar within 30 days.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

# IL0- 14 

# -a p (0) I947A 

### eJ.

§ 69.04, at 69-13 (4th ed. 2015); In the Matter of Respondent I, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 260, 266 n.6, 272 (Rev. Dept. 1993). Accordingly, having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that Schwab's offense does not warrant the imposition of a temporary suspension or referral to a disciplinary board at this time.

It is so ORDERED.

J

. Hardesty

cc: C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada Schwab Law Group Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director State Bar of Nevada

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 

### e