alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3



 EXHIBIT 10.3 

BELMONT SAVINGS BANK 

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN 

APPENDIX A-3 

Except as otherwise defined in this Appendix, the terms used herein shall have the meaning(s) ascribed to them in the Belmont Savings Bank
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“Plan”), to which this Appendix, as amended from time to time, is appended and into which this Appendix is incorporated by reference. 

Participant’s Benefit Percentage: 20% of Participant’s Final Average Compensation (as defined in the Plan), multiplied by the
Participant’s Vested Percentage, as set forth herein: 
  

							
	Participant Name	  	Date of Hire	  	Years of Service	  	Vested Percentage
	 Christopher Downs
	  	July 6, 2010	  	5-9	  	50%
		  		  	10 or more	  	100%

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, if prior to the completion of ten (10) Years of Service, the Participant either is
terminated by the Bank without Cause or resigns for Good Reason, the Participant’s “Benefit Percentage” shall be multiplied by the following: 
  

			
	Years of Service	  	Vested Percentage
	 5
	  	60%
	 6
	  	70%
	 7
	  	80%
	 8
	  	90%
	 9
	  	100%


  
 A-3
# C_2014245EN.01002702.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/27

---

Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Salama v Council

(Case T-378/14)

2014/C 245/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            564
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2,467
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     4,167
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          6,826
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            6,732
<LOANS>                                       101,253
<ALLOWANCE>                                       371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                117,393
<DEPOSITS>                                     86,473
<SHORT-TERM>                                    3,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             2,179
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          218
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                117,393
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 7,340
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 500
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  211
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                8,051
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              4,111
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,150
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           3,901
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,738
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,738
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,147
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.55
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      517
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  370
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 371
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              371
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
# C_2014351EN.01003101.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/31

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2014 — DJ v EASA

(Case F-3/14) (1)

1

2014/C 351/41

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  ОJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 27.

1

---
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 12/1/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Southern Company’s Technical Conference

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to a group of Southern Company 

scientists, engineers, and managers at the Southern Company Technical Conference in 

Birmingham, AL, on August 3, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Heather McTeer Toney/EPA R4 

Anne Heard/EPA R4

Javoyne Hicks White/EPA R4

Brandi Jenkins/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Approximately 150 Southern Company Employees
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.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S. Election Assistance Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 10, 2010, concerning Puerto Rico's amended State plan. The document contained the wrong States.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Whitener, 202-566-3100.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 10, 2010, in the FR Doc. 2010-2919, on page 6643, in the second and third                               ( print page 10229)                            column, correct the                         **SUMMARY**                         caption to read:                    

**SUMMARY**                        : Pursuant to sections 254(a)(11)(A) and 255(b) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) hereby causes to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         changes to the HAVA State plans previously submitted by Puerto Rico.                    

Dated: March 2, 2010.

Thomas R. Wilkey,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-4707 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.345 Paprika oleoresin. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive paprika oleoresin is the combination of flavor and color principles obtained from paprika (*Capsicum annuum* L.) by extraction, using any one or a combination of the following solvents: Acetone
Ethyl alcohol
Ethylene dichloride
Hexane
Isopropyl alcohol
Methyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
The definition of paprika oleoresin in this paragraph is for the purpose of identity as a color additive only, and shall not be construed as setting forth an official standard for paprika oleoresin under section 401 of the act.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures made with paprika oleoresin may contain as diluents only those substances listed in this subpart as safe and suitable in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* Paprika oleoresin shall contain no more residue of the solvents listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section than is permitted of the corresponding solvents in spice oleoresins under applicable food additive regulations in parts 170 through 189 of this chapter.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Paprika oleoresin may be safely used for the coloring of foods generally in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act, unless the use of added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the act, labeling in accordance with the provisions of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
#### Ashok Railkar, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janice A. Boll, Defendant-Appellee.

Gen. No. 68-128.

Second District.

June 12, 1969.

*278Howard and Decker, of Chicago, for appellant; O’Brien, Burnell, Puckett and Barnett, of Aurora, for appellee.

Opinion hy

JUSTICE ABRA-HAMSON.

Not to be published in full.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

************************************* 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Complainant 

* 

* 

RECEIVED 

NOV 2 5 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

* FAADocketFAA-2013-0715 

v. 

Airport Mailers, Inc., 

Respondent 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

*-************************************ 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2012S0700256 

DMS No. FAA-2013-0715 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

Comes now the Complainant, pursuant to Section 13.215 of the Rules of Practice in FAA 

Civil Penalty Actions, and in view of the submission of a signed promissory note and 

settlement reached by the parties, hereby withdraws the Complaint in the referenced 

matter. There will, therefore, be no issues for litigation for the as yet unscheduled 

hearing. The Cmp.plainantrequests that the Administrative Law Judge dismiss the 

proceedings. 

I

. q-t"'- Respectfully submitted this_ day of November, 2013. 

ames H. Dunfee, J . 

Attorney 

Office of the Region;li Counsel 

Southern Region 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that this Withdrawal of Complaint has been sent by CERTIFIED AND 

REGULAR MAIL as indicated below: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, 

AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

President 

Airport Mailers, Inc. 

PO Box2965 

Huntersville, NC 28070-2965 

\()an 

Donna 

mru 

E. Stanley ~ . {&n ~ M ~ . 

Legal Assistant 

nov 2 o 20:3 

Dated
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 December 23, 2019

b1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2019

159111(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159111

COA: 345315

Roscommon CC: 78-001095-FY

DAVID MARSHALL CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

10, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1685 Thyroxine-binding globulin test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A thyroxine-binding globulin test system is a device intended to measure thyroxine (thyroid)-binding globulin (TBG), a plasma protein which binds thyroxine, in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid diseases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71797, Dec. 30, 2019]
Pursuant 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40785

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO LUGO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-1901-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Hugo Lugo appeals the 41-month sentence imposed by the district

court following his guilty plea conviction of possession of a firearm by an illegal

alien. Lugo argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to state

adequate reasons for imposition of this sentence and that the court erred

substantively by imposing an unreasonable sentence. Although Lugo concedes

that these issues are reviewable only for plain error because they were not raised

before the district court, see United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 5, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-40785 Document: 00511070015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2010
No. 09-40785

2

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009), he seeks to preserve the issue of the

proper standard of review for possible further review.

Lugo contends that the district court did not address his arguments that

he should receive a lower sentence because he had no prior criminal record;

there was no evidence that the firearm had been or was about to be used; there

was no evidence that he knew that the firearm had been stolen; it was

questionable whether the firearm was automatic; and he immediately took

responsibility for owning the firearm. It is clear from the sentencing transcript

that the district court considered and rejected Lugo’s arguments and that the

court was concerned with his prior conduct in illegally reentering the country,

as well as the type of weapon he possessed, an Intratec 9 millimeter pistol loaded

with an attached magazine containing 30 live rounds of ammunition, and the

circumstances in which he had purchased it. Even if the district court was not

specific in rejecting Lugo’s arguments and did not explain its reasons for

imposing a sentence at the top of the guidelines range, Lugo has not shown that

any error affected his substantial rights because he has not shown that an

explanation of his sentence by the district court would have changed his

sentence. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 363-65.

Similarly, Lugo’s assertion that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it does not take into account mitigating factors is without merit. Lugo

has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness of his within guidelines

sentence and has not shown that the district court plainly erred in sentencing

him to 41 months of imprisonment. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523

F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-40785 Document: 00511070015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2010
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD  TYPE>     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 355,000
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,810,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           (209,000)
<INVENTORY>                            1,786,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,997,000
<PP&E>                                 2,737,000
<DEPRECIATION>                         837,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         7,075,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  4,672,000
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               21,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                             61,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           7,075,000
<SALES>                                2,491,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,491,000
<CGS>                                  1,804,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,804,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,195,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (42,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (441,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (441,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                         371,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (70,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.01)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.5
 
                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
                                                    -------------------------------------------
                                                      NUMBER         PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                     OF SHARES     OUTSTANDING         SHARES
                                                    ----------     -----------     ------------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>           <C>      
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                              2,300,000          100.00%       2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                             731,072           90.01%         658,012
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock        15,310,943          100.00%      15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                      11,242,857          100.00%      11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                       4,323,874          100.00%       4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                        6,000,000          100.00%       6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued           75,891           59.41%          45,087
   1997 Warrants Exercised                              48,300           84.33%          40,732
                                                    ----------                     ------------
                                                    40,032,937                       39,921,505

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                  39,921,505

NET LOSS                                                                           $(43,887,000)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                 $      (1.10)
                                                                                   ============
</TABLE>