alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 Exhibit 10.27 
  
 Summary of Director Compensation 
  
 All non-employee director compensation is set forth below, in accordance with the compensation guidelines for non-employee directors approved by the Board of Directors effective as
of March 24, 2006: 
  

										
	 	  	Annual
Payment

	  	Per In-person
Meeting

	  	Per Telephonic
Meeting


	 Board Meetings
	  	 	 	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Vice Chairman of the Board and Lead Independent Director
	  	$	51,000	  	$	2,500	  	$	1,250
	 Directors
	  	 	36,000	  	 	1,500	  	 	750
	 Audit Committee Meetings
	  	 	 	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Committee Chair
	  	$	10,000	  	$	2,000	  	$	1,000
	 Committee Members
	  	 	—  	  	 	1,500	  	 	1,000
	 Other Committee Meetings
	  	 	 	  	 	 	  	 	 
	 Committee Chair
	  	$	5,000	  	$	1,000	  	$	650
	 Committee Members
	  	 	—  	  	 	1,000	  	 	650

  
 Patrick J. Sullivan and Daniel J. Levangie,
employee directors of our company, do not receive any compensation for services rendered as a director. 
  
 Our non-employee directors are also eligible to participate in our 2004 Omnibus Stock Plan. Under the 2004 Omnibus Stock Plan, each non-employee director may be granted stock options and opportunities to make direct purchases
of stock and other equity interests in our company. 
  
 The Board of Directors approved an
annual option grant to purchase up to 16,000 shares of our common stock, which vests in one-twelfth increments on the first day of each calendar quarter for three years. Also, upon commencement of service as a director, each new non-employee
director receives an option to purchase the same number of shares of common stock as the annual option grant in effect at that time. Each non-employee director is entitled, under our Amended and Restated Director Compensation Method Plan, to receive
payment of the annual retainer fees for any calendar year either in cash or in shares of our common stock. Each non-employee director is also entitled to receive an annual stock award of 1,000 shares of our common stock, which is earned monthly
based on service. Lastly, each non-employee director is paid a cash fee for every meeting attended as set forth above. Each non-employee director may elect to defer for tax purposes the payment of the annual retainer, annual stock award and meeting
attendance fees.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 14, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 14, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0298. WILLIE SHEPHERD, III v. CYNTHIA M. THORNTON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2013V309
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00317-CV

Betty Ann Newby, Appellant

v.

Travis County, Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN201833, HONORABLE PATRICK O. KEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court signed its judgmen t on May 4, 2004. Appellant filed her notice of

accelerated appeal on May 28. Upon receiving the notice of appeal, the Clerk of this Court notified

appellant that the record was due on July 5 and instructed her that she should arrange to pay for the

record. On September 23, the Clerk of this Court sent notice that the record was overdue, asking that

it be filed by October 4. On September 27, this Court was informed that no arrangements had been

made to pay for the clerk’s record. On October 6, this Court notified appellant that she should

arrange payment for the record and submit to this Court a status report regarding her efforts to obtain

the record by October 18 and that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of her appeal for want

of prosecution. To date, appellant has not responded to this Court’s communications.2 We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: October 28, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 

**- 1242** 

DEREK N. JARVIS

,

P laintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

CONTRACTOR SECURITAS SECURITY,

Defendant

- Appellee

,

and

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; ISIAH LEGGETT; MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendant s

.

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

. Alexander Williams , Jr. , District Judge. ( 8 :11

- cv

- 00 654

- AW )

Submitted : June 21 , 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derek N. Jarvis , Appellant Pro Se. Edward Victor Arnold, James A. Rothschild, ANDERSON, COE & KING, Baltimore, Maryland , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district court ’ s order

granting Contractor Securitas Security’s motion to dismiss and

dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible err or. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. Contractor

Securitas Sec. , No. 8:11

- cv

- 00654

- AW (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2012) . 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
§ 48.4061(a)-3 Definitions. For purposes of the tax imposed by section 4061, unless otherwise expressly indicated: ( a ) *Automobile truck.* The term “automobile truck” includes automobile buses, and truck and bus trailers and semitrailers.
( b ) *Other automobile.* The term “other automobile” means all automobiles other than automobile trucks, and includes trailers and semitrailers suitable for use in connection with passenger automobiles, but does not include house trailers.
( c ) *Tractor.* The term “tractor” means any tractor chiefly used for highway transportation in combination with a trailer or semitrailer.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification of Principal ExecutiveOfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Fred P.Lampropoulos, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 6,  2009 | /s/ Fred P.  Lampropoulos                                              |
|----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Fred P. Lampropoulos                                                   |
|                       | President and Chief  Executive Officer

(principal executive  officer) |

 

 

This certificationaccompanies the foregoing Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of thiscertification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
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.

§ 301.6501(a)-1 Period of limitations upon assessment and collection. ( a ) The amount of any tax imposed by the Code (other than a tax collected by means of stamps) shall be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed. For rules applicable in cases where the return is filed prior to the due date thereof, see section 6501(b). In the case of taxes payable by stamp, assessment shall be made at any time after the tax became due and before the expiration of 3 years after the date on which any part of the tax was paid. For exceptions and additional rules, see subsections (b) to (g) of section 6501, and for cross references to other provisions relating to limitations on assessment and collection, see sections 6501(h) and 6504.
( b ) No proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of any tax shall be begun after the expiration of the applicable period for the assessment of such tax.
§ 44.6011(a)-1 Returns. ( a ) *In general.* Every person required to pay the tax on wagers imposed by section 4401 of the Code shall make for each month, from the daily records required by §§ 44.4403-1 and 44.6001-1, a return on Form 730 in accordance with the instructions and regulations applicable thereto. A return shall be made for each month whether or not liability has been incurred for that month. If the taxpayer ceases operations which make him liable for the tax, the last return shall be marked “Final Return”.
( b ) *Return on Form 11-C.* Every person required to pay the special tax imposed by section 4411 shall make a return on Form 11-C in accordance with the instructions and regulations applicable thereto.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS THREE MONTHS YEAR-TO-DATE SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC.
1997 10-Q FOR THE FIRST QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,758,000
<SECURITIES>                                 4,809,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,695,000
<PP&E>                                       1,910,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,258,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,713,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          757,000
<BONDS>                                      6,820,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,106,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,713,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,058,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             687,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,647,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,647,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,647,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
§ 54.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-3 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78458, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### James Lauzau, Respondent, v Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP, Respondent, and Celling & Barnes, P.C., Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 476]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Nelson H. Cosgrove, J.), entered June 28, 2004. The order denied the motion of defendant Cellino & Barnes, P.C., to dismiss the amended complaint and cross claims against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1060 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1060

To include the Territory of American Samoa in the Supplemental Security 
                            Income Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 1995

 Mr. Faleomavaega introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To include the Territory of American Samoa in the Supplemental Security 
                            Income Program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME BENEFITS PROGRAM 
              TO AMERICAN SAMOA.

    (a) In General.--The 7th sentence of section 1101(a)(1) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)) is amended by inserting 
``and title XVI (as in effect pursuant to the amendment made by section 
301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972)'' before ``also''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 1614(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(e)) is 
        amended by inserting ``, American Samoa,'' before ``and''.
            (2) Section 1614(a)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1382c(a)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``or national'' 
        after ``citizen''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on October 1, 
1995.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Semple, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 192]

*1059Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), rendered on July 2, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is null and void or, alternatively, does not preclude his challenge to the imposition of an enhanced sentence. Contrary to defendant’s first contention, “the requirement that a defendant be apprised of [the] maximum sentence in order for a waiver to be valid does not apply in a situation such as this where there is a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver” *(People v*Grant, 294 AD2d 671, 672 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 730 [2002]; *cf. People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Shea,*254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]).

We agree with the alternative contention of defendant, however, and conclude that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the enhanced sentence because Supreme Court “failed to advise defendant of either the conduct that could result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence before defendant waived his right to appeal ... or the potential periods of incarceration for an enhanced sentence” *(People v Sundown,*305 AD2d 1075, 1075-1076 [2003]; *cf. People v Patton,*273 AD2d 839 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 937 [2000]; *People v Wynn,*239 AD2d 921 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 912 [1997]). Nevertheless, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied his right to due process when the court imposed an enhanced sentence based on his postplea arrest. “To satisfy due process requirements, ‘[w]hen an issue is raised concerning the validity of the postplea charge or there is a denial of any involvement in the underlying crime,’ the court must conduct an inquiry ‘at which the defendant has an opportunity to show that the arrest is without foundation’ ” *(People v McClemore,*276 AD2d 32, 36 [2000], quoting *People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). “The nature and extent of the inquiry ... is within the court’s discretion,” but it must be of sufficient depth so that the court may be satisfied that there is a legitimate basis for the arrest *(Outley,*80 NY2d at 713; *see McClemore,*276 AD2d at 36). We conclude that defendant was afforded “an adequate opportunity to explain the circumstances *1060of the arrest” and that the court properly determined that there was a legitimate basis for the arrest (Outley, 80 NY2d at 714; *see People v Relyea,*1 AD3d 1016, *lv denied*1 NY3d 633 [2004]; *People v Smith,*300 AD2d 1038, 1039 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 632 [2003]).

Finally, the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
§ 300.4 Enrolled agent special enrollment examination fee. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent pursuant to 31 CFR 10.4(a).
( b ) *Fee.* The fee for taking the enrolled agent special enrollment examination is $99 per part, which is the cost to the government for overseeing the development and administration of the examination and is in addition to the fees charged by the administrator of the examination.
( c ) *Person liable for the fee.* The person liable for the special enrollment examination fee is the applicant taking the examination.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to registrations for the enrolled agent special enrollment examination that occur on or after March 31, 2022.
[T.D. 9288, 71 FR 58742, Oct. 5, 2006, as amended by T.D. 9503, 75 FR 60320, Sept. 30, 2010; T.D. 9523, 76 FR 21806, Apr. 19, 2011; T.D. 9820, 82 FR 33012, July 19, 2017; T.D. 9962, 87 FR 11297, Mar. 1, 2022]
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 147

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30,

5 1996’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5169-5170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.
    Date: February 17-18, 2009.
    Time: 7 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[[Page 5170]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, Chevy 
Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Rd, NW., Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Helen Lin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, 
NIH/NIAMS/RB, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Plaza One, Bethesda, 
MD 20817, 301-594-4952, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315d585f5900715c50585d1f5f58591f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb87828583daab868a8287c5858283c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 23, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-1959 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: "Carroll, Danny (RTA)" <Danny.carroll@riotinto.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/21/2011 01:31 PM

Subject: RE: Category HAP spreadsheet

I thought I sent the corrected one but apparently it wasn’t. I’ll get it to you.

The attorney promised me a response yesterday afternoon but we didn’t receive it. I’ll stay on him.

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:44 AM

To: Carroll, Danny (RTA)

Subject: Category HAP spreadsheet

Mr. Carroll,

Did Rio-Tinto Alcan ever submit a corrected version of the category HAP spreadsheet that Rochelle sent 

you a while back (sometime in November 2010 I believe) for the Sebree facility? We cannot seem to find 

that spreadsheet. Would you please reply to this email and attach a copy of the corrected category HAP 

spreadsheet?

Also, have you heard from your lawyer about the CBI status of the information EPA requested during the 

Sebree facility site visit in March 2011? Not trying to harass you about this, but I figured since I was 

sending you an email anyway I may as well touch base on that issue as well.

Thanks,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine Underwood, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 473]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Mario J. Rossetti, A.J.), rendered September 9, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.