alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS



 Exhibit 10.16 
 Danaher Corporation 
 Description of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Executive
Officers 
 In addition to the compensation arrangements otherwise set forth as exhibits to Danaher’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (the “Annual Report”), following is a description of the compensation arrangements for each of the Company’s named executive officers and for each other executive officer who is also a member of the
Company’s Board of Directors (the “officers”). 
  

				
	 Name and Position
	  	Base Salary
	 Steven M. Rales
 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	395,000
	 Mitchell P. Rales
 Chairman of the Executive Committee
	  	$	395,000
	 H. Lawrence Culp, Jr.
 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	1,100,000
	 Daniel L. Comas
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	500,000
	 Philip W. Knisely
 Executive Vice President
	  	$	635,000
	 Steven E. Simms
 Executive Vice President
	  	$	635,000

 Mr. Patrick W. Allender, formerly Executive Vice President, retired effective February 28, 2007.

 The officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans, including the Company’s group medical, dental, vision,
disability, accidental death and dismemberment, life insurance and 401(k) plans. These plans are generally available to all salaried employees and do not discriminate in favor of the officers. In addition, the perquisites provided to the officers
consist primarily of term life insurance, reimbursement for certain club dues and tax preparation and financial planning services, parking, automobile allowance, relocation costs, annual physical, and, with respect to Mr. Culp, personal use of
the Company plane when not in use for business purposes. Not every officer receives each of the perquisites listed above. In addition, Messrs. Steven Rales and Mitchell Rales are permitted to make personal use of designated Company office space and
secretarial, tax and accounting services. 
 In addition, each officer (other than Messrs. Steven Rales and Mitchell Rales) participates in the
Company’s Executive Deferred Incentive Program, 2003 Incentive Plan and Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan, each of which is attached as an exhibit to the Annual Report.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6011-10 Certain organizations, including trusts, required to file unrelated business income tax returns in electronic form. ( a ) *Unrelated business income tax returns required in electronic form.* ( 1 ) Organizations, including trusts, subject to tax under section 511 that are required to file a return under § 1.6012-2(e) or § 1.6012-3(a)(5) of this chapter to report gross income included in computing unrelated business taxable income, as defined in section 512, or that are otherwise required to file Form 990-T, *Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return (and proxy tax under section 6033(e)),* are required to file that return in electronic form.
( 2 ) Returns filed in electronic form must be filed in accordance with applicable revenue procedures, publications, forms, instructions, or other guidance.
( b ) *Failure to file.* If an organization or trust fails to file an unrelated business income tax return in electronic form when required to do so by this section, the organization or trust has failed to file the return. See section 6651 for the addition to tax for failure to file a return. In determining whether there is reasonable cause for failure to file the return, § 301.6651-1(c) will apply.
( c ) *Applicability date.* The rules of this section apply to unrelated business income tax returns required to be filed during calendar years beginning after *February 23, 2023.*
[T.D. 9972, 88 FR 11770, Feb. 23, 2023]
1 The Honorable F. A. Gossett, III, Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska, to whom the case was referred fo r final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3515

___________ Marlin E. Jones, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Nebraska. * Terry L. Burns, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 22, 2010 Filed: April 27, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Marlin E. Jones appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of his action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. We conclude that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because, without sufficient justification, Jones did not atte nd the final pretrial conference and did not appear for trial. SeeDuBose v. Minnesota , 893 F.2d 169, 171 (8th Cir. 1990) (standard of review; affirming Rule 41(b) dismissal where pro se plaintiff failed to-2- attend pretrial conference or appear for trial) . We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel to represent Jones, see Phillips v. Jasper County Jail , 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; outlining factors), or in denying Jones’s late-t endered motion to transfer venue, seeTerra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp. , 119 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling andServicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015, by and among Morgan StanleyCapital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association,as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Trust Advisor,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar,Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C24 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of theAgreement, I, Daniel Bober,Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certifythat:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed thisCertificate as of the 28th day of February 2018. 

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go  far |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------|
`Opinion issued November 17, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00926-CV

———————————

IN RE STEPHEN D. DIFERRANTE, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Stephen D. DiFerrante, files this pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus complaining of a justice court judgment in a forcible detainer action 

that was signed on September 3, 2015.1 Relator has also filed a motion to stay 

trial. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. Relator’s motion for emergency 

relief is DENIED. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

 

1

The underlying case is George Wesley Bruner v. Stephen David DiFerrante, cause 

number EV11C0085855, in the Justice Court, Precinct 1, Place 1, Harris County, 

Texas, the Hon. Dale Gorczynski, presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.
39406.

#### BAUCOM v. THE STATE.

Decided April 3, 1962.

*Dudley S. Hancock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jack Holland, Solicitor-General,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The defendant under an indictment charging him with the offense of receiving stolen goods was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. His motion for new trial on the general grounds only was denied and he excepted to that judgment. *Held:*

The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize the verdict of the jury and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on the general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
### Comments Received by the U.S. Department of State on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project

On March 1, the Department of State (the Department) released the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Presidential Permit application for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (Project). A notice of availability (NOA) for the Draft SEIS was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2013, commencing a 45-day public comment period, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which ended April 22, 2013. Notices were also distributed to participating federal and state agencies, elected officials, media organizations, Native American tribes, private landowners, and other interested parties. As part of the SEIS process, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties were encouraged to submit comments, questions, and concerns about the project via e-mail, or standard mail to the Department. Those interested were also given the opportunity to provide oral and/or written comments related to the proposed Project during a public meeting held in Grand Island, Nebraska on April 18, 2013. Where appropriate, the Draft SEIS will be revised in response to public comments, and the revised document will be published as the Final SEIS. The Department has received more than 1.2 million comment letters from various entities regarding the Draft SEIS, and has been diligently evaluating these comments to ensure that the Final SEIS incorporates this input as appropriate. The Department will be posting these comments to Regulations.gov starting May 23, 2013. Comments will be posted weekly, in batches, in approximate chronological order according to the date received by the Department. The large majority of comment letters are mass-mailed- 2 -

electronic form letters containing identical text. Each form letter template will be posted along with lists of names of individuals who sent each form letter during the specified time period. New name lists will be provided with each weekly posting. Prior to posting, the Department will review each “unique” letter (letters that do not solely consist of a form letter) to remove personal information such as street addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses. All comments and names lists will be posted prior to completion of the Final Supplemental EIS. Other than redacting personal information, the Department has not made any edits to the comments it received, and is not responsible for the content

within the submitted comments. A comprehensive description of the proposed Project, up- to -date information regarding the federal review process, and the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement are available at http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov . Contact Genevieve Walker, NEPA Coordinator, at 202-647-9798 for additional information.
Russell Golman rgolman@gmail.com

Thankyou for allowing me thetimeto speak out in favor ofthe clean power plan. My name is Russell Golman. I live here in Pittsburgh, in Greenfield. Iam a professor ofsocial and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh is awonderful community. Itoften shows up on lists ofthe most livable cities in America. I lookforward to starting afamily in this city and living here a longtime. Unfortunately, air pollution makes Pittsburgh a less healthy home than it has the potential to be. My neighbors, friends, and family are all at greater risk for respiratory problems, even for cancer, because ofair pollution that comes predominantlyfrom coal-fired power plants.
Renewable energy and higher energy efficiency standards offer us an opportunityto live in a cleaner city and have a higher qualityof life. But I can't walk down Penn Ave in the strip district and buy cleaner air. Even Mayor Peduto can't solve this problem on his own, because the coal plants aren't located here in Pittsburgh, although their pollution is. We need the states, coordinated by the EPA atthe federal level, to act.
The EPA's clean power plan is ashining example ofgovernment- by the people, for the people- at its best. There are entrenched special intereststhat profitfrom the status quo, selling electricity produced by dirtycoal without paying for the negative externality they impose on everyone else. But our governmentwill not be bought off by these special interests. Itserves us all. All Americans will be able to breathe a little easier because ofthe clean power plan. We may slow the pace of climate change and leave a more hospitable planetforour children because ofthe clean power plan. And, by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, we may stimulate further innovation in these fields and grow a clean energy economy because ofthe clean power plan. Iam proud of my governmenttoday. Iam proud to speak out in full support ofthe EPA's clean power plan.
427 A.2d 1227

#### Commonwealth v. Martinez, Appellant.

Submitted December 6, 1979.

Kenneth C. Sandoe, for appellant;

David J. Brightbill, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before BROSKY, WICKERSHAM and ROBERTS, JJ.*

*

 Justice Samuel J. Roberts of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2018

No. 04-18-00344-CV

John B. URBAHNS,

Appellant

v.

LSREF2 COBALT (TX), LLC,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI22479

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After we granted Appellee’s first motion for an extension of time to file the brief, 

Appellee’s brief was due on October 31, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b), (d). On the 

extended due date, Appellee filed a second motion for an extension of time to file the brief until 

November 16, 2018, for a total extension of twenty-three days. See id. R. 10.5(b). 

Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s brief is due on November 16, 2018. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Harry Thomas NETHKEN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bob BELL, Monongalia County Commission President; Ansel Kennedy, Monongalia County Commissioner; John Pyles, Monongalia County Commissioner, Joe Bartolo, Monongalia County Sheriff; Al Kisner, Chief Deputy; Todd Forbes, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6376.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

*76Harry Thomas Nethken, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Harry Thomas Nethken, Jr., appeals the recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing certain parties and claims in this § 1983 action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41041

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JORGE AGUSTIN-GARCIA, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-283-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Agustin-Garcia pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to one 

count of illegal reentry. Agustin-Garcia’s presentence report (PSR) assigned a 

base offense level of eight, recommended an eight-level increase pursuant to 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2014) based on his 2010 conviction for attempted sexual 

assault of a child, and assigned a two-level decrease based on acceptance of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41041 Document: 00514209820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2017
No. 16-41041

2

responsibility for the offense, resulting in a total offense level of 14. AgustinGarcia’s previous convictions for petit larceny, making a terroristic threat, 

third-degree assault, attempted sexual assault of a child, failure to appear in 

court, driving while intoxicated, and a prior illegal reentry charge yielded a 

criminal history score of 14 that established a criminal history category of VI. 

The district court granted the Government’s motion for an additional one-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which resulted in a guidelines range 

of 33-41 months. Agustin-Garcia was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment 

with no term of supervised release. He did not object to the calculation of his 

criminal history score in the district court.

Agustin-Garcia now argues that the district court reversibly erred in 

assigning him two criminal history points for both the terroristic threat and 

assault convictions because he was sentenced for each on the same day. He

argues (and the Government concedes) that his correct criminal history 

category would have been a V. A criminal history category of V and an offense 

level of 14 would have given a guidelines range of 30-37 months imprisonment.

This court reviews the district court’s sentence for plain error. Given 

Agustin-Garcia’s lengthy criminal history, including a previous conviction for 

illegal reentry, and his sentence that falls within both the correct and incorrect 

guideline ranges, this court finds that the district court’s computational error 

did no offense to the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial 

proceedings. 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence of the district court.

 Case: 16-41041 Document: 00514209820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2017
#### Howard JONES, Robert Edwards, Bill Starr Buc McLendon, Russell Warner, George Lewis, as Trustees of the Ironworkers Local #272 Pension Fund, Health and Welfare Fund and Apprenticeship Training Program, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DARIN & ARMSTRONG, INC., a Michigan Corporation and United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., a Michigan Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-5936.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1986.

Richard W. Groner, David E. Gurley, Sarasota, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

W. Eric Venable, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before GODBOLD and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges and SIMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

BY THE COURT:

Appellants’ motion to withdraw the opinion of this court, 785 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir.1986), is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Exhibit 35.7





| | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
                                         D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2015, by
and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners,
LLC, as General Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Excluded Mortgage Loan Special Servicer, Pentalpha
Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,
as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2015-C23 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober,
Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from June 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting
Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate as of the 4thday of March 2016.



|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 





|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | 
|---------------------- |