alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2319

STARSHA M. SEWELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WESTAT, INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Timothy J. Sullivan , Magistrate Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 01895

- TJS )

Submitted : March 29, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Strong, VENABLE, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Starsha M . Sewell appeals the magistrate judge’s order dismissing on res judicata grounds the civil action Sewell filed in June 2020. * On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the appealed

- from order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourt h Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
ALLEGED COLLUSION IN PLACING A CORPORATION IN THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### David B. Carpenter v. Andrew Williamson et al.

Decided, November 24, 1905.

*Corporations*— Stockholder *Must Redress Wrongs Through the Corporation.*

A stockholder in a corporation can not maintain an action to redress wrongs done the corporation, whereby he has suffered in his stock-holding interest, unless he alleges an effort to secure redress through the corporation, its officers, assignee or receiver, and neglect or refusal- on their part to act.

*500
      *David B. Carpenter,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. Hitchens,*contra.

Winch, J.; Marvin, J., and Henry, J., concur.

The petition in this case attempts to set forth a cause of action growing out of the defendant’s collusion and fraudulent management or mismanagement, of a corporation in which plaintiff was a stockholder, by reason whereof said corporation tvas placed in the hands of a receiver and its entire assets transferred to defendants under the guise of a new corporation which is also made defendant to the action.

The plaintiff says that the suit is one of general interest to all the other stockholders and creditors of said original company, who are very numerous, and that he brings the action not only for himself, but for all other stockholders and creditors thereof who may come in to prosecute it.

One of the defendants demurred to the petition in the common pleas court, the demurrer was sustained, judgment entered on the demurrer, and the matter brought here for review of said judgment.

The petition is very voluminous, but we have searched it in vain for any allegations that plaintiff ever attempted to secure redress for the wrongs of which he complains through the original corporation or its receiver, though it is manifest that he was wronged, if at all, because of his ownership of stock in a corporation whose rights were infringed.

Neither is said corporation or its receiver a party to the action.

We hold that a stockholder can not maintain an action to redress wrongs done the corporation, whereby he has suffered in his stock-holding interest, unless he allege an effort to secure redress through the corporation, its officers, assignee or receiver, and neglect or refusal on their part to act.

No authorities on this proposition need be cited. The whole of the eighty-ninth chapter in the fourth volume of *Thompson’s Commentaries on the Law of Corporations*is on this subject, and this court has heretofore recognized the rule. *Larwill*v. *Burke,*19 C. C., 449, 475.

*501The petition being deficient in the respect pointed out, it failed to state a' cause of action, and the demurrer to it was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44089-44090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17673]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 770

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; FRL-9394-1]
RIN 2070-AJ92

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products; 
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of June 10, 
2013, concerning formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood 
products. This document extends the comment period from August 9, 2013, 
to September 9, 2013. After receiving requests for an extension, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to extend the comment period in order to 
give stakeholders additional time to assess the impacts of the 
proposal, review technical documents in the docket, and prepare 
comments.

DATES: The EPA is extending the comment date on a proposed rule 
published June 10, 2013 at 78 FR 34820. Comments, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018, must be received on 
or before September 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of June 10, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Cindy Wheeler, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 566-0484; email address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov.

[[Page 44090]]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register of June 10, 2013 (78 FR 
34820) (FRL-9342-3). EPA is hereby extending the comment period, which 
was set to end on August 9, 2013, to September 9, 2013.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the June 10, 2013, 
Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the technical 
contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 770

    Environmental protection, Formaldehyde, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Toxic substances, Wood.

    Dated: July 17, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-17673 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40282 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ABRAHAM VILLARREAL-OROZCO, also known asAbrahan Orozco-Villarreal Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-1371
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abraham Vi llarreal-Orozco appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villarreal-Orozco contends that the district court misapplied the Guidelines and committed reversible error when it characterized his prior Texas conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance as a drug traffi cking offense for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). Because Villarreal-Orozco preserved his argument in the district court, we review that court’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-40282

2 interpretation ofthe Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). The record demonstrates that Villarreal-Orozco was previously convicted of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in violation of T E X
. H EALTH & SAFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(a). This court recently held that a § 481.112(a) conviction f or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance is indi stinguishable from the offense of possession with intent to distribute and, thus, qualifies as a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a). U nited States v. Ford , 509 F.3d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 2007). Further, this court noted that the definitions of“drug trafficking offense” under § 2L1.2 and “controlled substance offense” under § 2K2.1 are effectively identical for purposes ofdetermining ifa prior § 481.112(a) conviction for possession with intent todeliver a controlled substance justifies a sentencing enhancement based
on either section. I d. at 717 n.2. Therefore, in light of Ford , the district court did not err when it characterized Villarreal-Orozco’s prior Texas conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance as a drug trafficking offense for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). In light ofApprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Villarreal-Orozco challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). AFFIRMED.
exv10w43



 






EXHIBIT 10.43




February 26, 2007




Raj Nathan

Chief Marketing Officer

(Delivered by hand)



Dear Raj:



This is to inform you of your 2007 compensation as approved by the Sybase, Inc. Compensation
Committee:





	 	1.	 	Cash Compensation (effective January 1, 2007)






	 	1.	 	Annual base salary: $386,568
	 
	 	2.	 	Incentive bonus target: $262,866
	 
	 	3.	 	Total target cash compensation (TTC): $649,434




The terms of the incentive bonus are set out in the Executive Leadership Team Incentive Plan.





	 	2.	 	Long-Term Incentives






	 	(a)	 	Sybase Stock Option Grant (4-year vest)






	 	•	 	10,500 options






	 	(b)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (performance vest)






	 	•	 	8,600 shares






	 	(c)	 	Restricted Stock Grant (time vest)






	 	•	 	4,700 shares




The vesting terms are set out in the relevant equity award grant agreement.



I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions in 2006. I look forward
to your support and contributions in 2007.




Sincerely,




	 	 	 
	/s/ John S. Chen

	 	 
	John S. Chen
	 	 
	Chairman, CEO and President
	 	 






     CC: HR File
Amendment to Employement and Change in Control Agreements



 EXHIBIT 10.19 
 SIGNIFICANT TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT AND CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENTS 
 BY INDIVIDUAL OFFICER

 (The form of agreements was filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2000. The list filed as part
of that exhibit has been updated to include the following Officer.) 
  

											
	 	  	Minimum
annual
base salary	  	Incentive
compensation
percentage	 	Additional
SERP
points	  	Severance
benefits
maximum
months	  	Change in
control
lump-sum
salary benefit
	 John P. Hester
	  	$175,000	  	75%	 	10 points	  	18 months	  	24 months
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 4, 2010

Decided November 23, 2010

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

   

No. 10‐1003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ISAIAH SMITH,

Defendant‐Appellant.                 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08‐CR‐89

Lynn Adelman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Isaiah Smith, a member of the Milwaukee street gang “Solid Over Concrete,” was

arrested after selling an informant 55 grams of crack for $1,700 during a police sting.  Smith

was turned over to federal authorities and pleaded guilty to distributing crack.  See 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006).  The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment,

which at that time was the mandatory minimum for crack offenses involving 50 or more

grams.  See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006).

Smith filed a notice to appeal, but his appointed counsel has concluded that the

appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐1003 Page 2

(1967).  Smith did not respond to our invitation to comment on counselʹs motion.  See CIR.R.

51(b).  Because counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, we limit our review to the

one potential issue counsel discusses.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th

Cir. 2002).

According to counsel, Smith does not want his guilty plea vacated.  Thus counsel

appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the

voluntariness of the plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel evaluates only one potential argument: whether Smith could challenge the

reasonableness of his prison term.  At sentencing the district court properly calculated a

guidelines imprisonment range of 120 to 150 months and imposed the 120‐month statutory

minimum.  There are two exceptions permitting a district court to sentence below a

statutory minimum, but neither applied to Smith: the government did not move for a

reduced sentence based on substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and Smith’s ten

criminal history points made him ineligible for “safety valve” relief, see id. § 3553(f);

see also United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Simpson, 337

F.3d 905, 909 (7th Cir. 2003).  Because the district court was constrained from sentencing

Smith to anything less than the statutory minimum, we agree with counsel that a challenge

to the prison term would be frivolous.

Counselʹs motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7873

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KITTRELL BERNARD DECATOR; CRAIG LAMONT SCOTT,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-281-K, CR-95-202-K)

Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: March 30, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kittrell Bernard Decator, Craig Lamont Scott, Appellants Pro Se.

James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kittrell B. Decator and Craig L. Scott appeal from the district court's order denying their motion filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1), to dismiss their convictions and sentences for

bank robbery, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1997). Appellants

contend that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over their charges. Because their claims are frivolous, we

affirm the district court's dismissal of their motion. We also deny

their motion to place this case in abeyance. 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.

AFFIRMED
exv10w32



 





Exhibit 10.32




Non-Employee Director Compensation Program




     The following is a summary of the compensation arrangements for Orbital’s non-employee
directors effective January 1, 2007:



Annual Retainers and Meeting Fees:





	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $30,000
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $5,000 for the chairperson of each standing committee
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $1,000 for each non-chair member of each standing committee
	 
	 	–	 	Annual retainer of $10,000 for the lead independent director
	 
	 	–	 	$1,000 for each Board meeting attended in person in excess of five meetings per
year
	 
	 	–	 	$500 for each Board meeting held telephonically
	 
	 	–	 	$1,000 for each committee meeting attended in person
	 
	 	–	 	$500 for each committee meeting held telephonically





Annual Stock Unit Grant:





	 	–	 	Each non-employee director receives an automatic annual grant of stock units
under Orbital’s 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan having a dollar value of $40,000
based on the closing price of Orbital’s common stock on the grant date. The grant date
shall be the second business day of the calendar year (“Annual Grant Date”), or if the
non-employee director is first elected to the Board of Directors after the Annual Grant
Date, then the date of such non-employee director’s election. The stock units granted
will vest in their entirety one year from the Annual Grant Date.
#### § 1.7701(l)-1 Conduit financing arrangements.

Section 7701(l) authorizes the issuance of regulations that recharacterize any multiple-party financing transaction as a transaction directly among any two or more of such parties where the Secretary determines that such recharacterization is appropriate to prevent avoidance of any tax imposed by title 26 of the United States Code.

[T.D. 8611, 60 FR 41015, Aug. 11, 1995, as amended by T.D. 8735, 62 FR 53502, Oct. 14, 1997]
#### § 157.6011-1 General requirement of return, statement, or list.

Every person liable for tax under section 5891 must file a return with respect to the tax in accordance with the forms and instructions provided by the Internal Revenue Service.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 71]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 1209]]

Public Law 113-71
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the rules 
 regarding the determination of the compensation of the Chief Financial 
  Officer of the District of Columbia. <<NOTE: Dec. 26, 2013 -  [H.R. 
                                3343]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION OF CHIEF 
                              FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DISTRICT OF 
                              COLUMBIA.

    (a) Determination of Compensation.--Section 424(b)(2)(E) of the 
District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.24(b)(2)(E), D.C. 
Official Code) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(E) Pay.--The Chief Financial Officer shall be 
                paid at a rate such that the total amount of 
                compensation paid during any calendar year does not 
                exceed an amount equal to the limit on total pay which 
                is applicable during the year under section 5307 of 
                title 5, United States Code, to an employee described in 
                section 5307(d) of such title.''.

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

    Approved December 26, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3343:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-267 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            Nov. 18, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Monday, September 14, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, September 14, 2009, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Sallie Chavez. For more information please contact Ms. Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: July 30, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-18775 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P