alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.109 Precedential Final Decisions of the Secretary. ( a ) The Chair of the Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board (DAB Chair) may designate a final decision of the Secretary issued by the Medicare Appeals Council in accordance with part 405, subpart I; part 422, subpart M; part 423, subpart U; or part 478, subpart B, of this chapter as precedential. In determining which decisions should be designated as precedential, the DAB Chair may take into consideration decisions that address, resolve, or clarify recurring legal issues, rules or policies, or that may have broad application or impact, or involve issues of public interest.
( b ) Precedential decisions are made available to the public, with personally identifiable information of the beneficiary removed, and have precedential effect from the date they are made available to the public. Notice of precedential decisions is published in the Federal Register.
( c ) Medicare Appeals Council decisions designated in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section have precedential effect and are binding on all CMS components, on all HHS components that adjudicate matters under the jurisdiction of CMS, and on the Social Security Administration to the extent that components of the Social Security Administration adjudicate matters under the jurisdiction of CMS.
( d ) Precedential effect, as used in this section, means that the Medicare Appeals Council's— ( 1 ) Legal analysis and interpretation of a Medicare authority or provision is binding and must be followed in future determinations and appeals in which the same authority or provision applies and is still in effect; and
( 2 ) Factual findings are binding and must be applied to future determinations and appeals involving the same parties if the relevant facts are the same and evidence is presented that the underlying factual circumstances have not changed since the issuance of the precedential final decision.
[82 FR 5105, Jan. 17, 2017]
#### GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. Succession of Ed COLEMAN.

No. 80-C-1461.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1980.

In re Herbert Coleman, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, and stay order, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. No. 11,660. Parish of Orleans.

Granted. Original preliminary injunction granted by trial judge reinstated. Application for writs to the court of appeal was untimely, time for appeal having expired. Code of C.P. art. 3612.
Exhibit 10.21
                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                        OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT
                               DATED MARCH 1, 2000
                                       FOR
                                  DAVID B. LEE

      THIS AMENDMENT executed on this 23rd day of December 2003, by and between
OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, located in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (the
"Bank"), and DAVID B. LEE (the "Officer").

      On March 1, 2000, the Bank and the Officer executed the SALARY
CONTINUATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement").

      The undersigned hereby amends, in part, said Agreement for the purpose of
modifying the Normal Retirement Benefit. Therefore,

      Section 2.1.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the new Section 2.1.1 as follows:

      2.1.1 Amount of Benefit. The annual benefit under this Section 2.1 is
seventy-five percent (75%) of the Officer's Average Annual Compensation for the
previous five (5) full calendar years ending December 31, 2003, reduced by the
following amounts:

            (a) Social Security. 50 percent of the estimated annual primary
      Social Security benefit to be paid at age 66; and

            (b) 401(k) Plan. 100 percent of the estimated 15-year annuity that
      could be purchased with the Bank's contributions to the 401(k) Plan. These
      would include any rollover (distribution) from the defined benefit plan,
      contribution matches and any other contribution. The annuity is to be
      calculated using an annual interest rate equal to the 10-year Treasury
      Note rate plus 150 basis points, compounded monthly.

      Section 2.1.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced by the new Section 2.1.2 as follows:

      2.1.2 Payment of Benefit. The Bank shall pay the annual benefit to the
Officer in 12 equal monthly installments payable on the first day of each month
commencing on January 1, 2004. The annual benefit shall be paid to the Officer
for 15 years. The Bank, in its sole and absolute discretion, may make a lump sum
payment of this benefit at any time, calculating the present value of said
benefit using a discount rate equal to the 10-Year U. S. Treasury Note rate plus
150 basis points and monthly compounding.

IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Officer and the Bank have agreed to this First
Amendment.

OFFICER:                           BANK:

                                          OMEGA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

/s/ David B. Lee                          By   /s/Robert A. Szeyller
DAVID B. LEE
                                          Its  Chairman, Compensation Committee_
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7805

ANTHONY DOVE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;

CHRISTOPHER HILL, Detective; BRANSON VICKORY,

District Attorney for District Eight; IMELDA

PATE, Assistant District Attorney for District

Eight-A; KINSTON FREE PRESS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-02-33-4-H)

Submitted: April 1, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,

SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; David J. Adinolfi, II,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Julia Furr

Youngman, ELLIS & WINTERS, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; John

Adam Bussian, III, THE BUSSIAN LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dove appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Dove v. Lenoir County

Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-02-33-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2002). 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
#### § 800.240 Section 721.

The term *section 721* means section 721 of title VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565).
#### § 136.2 Purpose of the regulations.

The regulations in this part establish general principles and program requirements for carrying out the Indian health programs.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.39

                     SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This supplemental employment agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into 
this 28th day of August, 1998 (the "Effective Date") between Alfred J. Stein 
("Executive") and VLSI Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the 
"Company") is intended to supplement that Employment Agreement between the 
parties entered into on the same date.  

     The Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:

     This Agreement shall not supersede or amend in any way that agreement 
between the Company and Executive entered into as of July 8, 1998 (the "Prior 
Agreement"), that Employment Agreement between the Company and Executive 
entered into as of August 28, 1998,(the "Employment Agreement"), and any 
other agreements, arrangements or programs dealing with Executive's 
compensation for providing services to the Company.

     In addition to the other compensation and benefits to be provided to 
Executive under Executive's various agreements, arrangements and programs 
with the Company, the Company agrees to provide the following benefits on the 
same terms and conditions as set forth in the Employment Agreement except as 
otherwise expressly set forth in this Agreement:  (1) the installation of a 
home security system of Executive's choosing for each of Executive's 
residences either currently owned by Executive or acquired by Executive 
during the term of the Employment Agreement or within three (3) years 
thereafter, but in no event later than the sixth anniversary of the effective 
date of the Employment Agreement, (2) the purchase for Executive of a new car 
of Executive's choosing, or reimbursement to Executive for the cost of a new 
car of Executive's choosing if such car has already been purchased, in 1998 
and, if the Employment Agreement remains in effect for three years, in 2001, 
(3) the provision of a driver/security guard for Executive's use of 
Executive's choosing and the payment of the periodic service fees for the 
home security system for Executive's residence or residences during the term 
of the Employment Agreement, and (4) during the term of the Employment 
Agreement, the payment for (or reimbursement to Executive of) a country club 
membership at a club of Executive's choosing and the monthly dues for such 
club membership.  

     The terms of Articles 4 through 7, inclusive, of the Employment 
Agreement are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference.  

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive and a duly authorized representative of 
the Company have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written 
above.

VLSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.                  ALFRED J. STEIN


By:     /s/ Robert P. Dilworth                    /s/ Alfred J. Stein
   ---------------------------------    -------------------------------------
Name:   ROBERT P. DILWORTH, MEMBER
        --------------------------
        BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Title:  VLSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.
HomeKenya

# Kenya

209 items

        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Kenyan Prime Cabinet Secretary and Cabinet Secretary for Foreign and Diaspora Affairs Musalia Mudavadi Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 1, 2024Thomas Jefferson RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		United States Reiterates Support for Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti	  Matthew MillerJanuary 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Multinational Security Support Mission Pre-Planning Conference	  December 22, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Kenya’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 12, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Press Briefing with Ian J. McCary, Deputy Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS	  December 5, 2023BRUSSELS HUB 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Accelerating Fast Mitigation: Summit on Methane and Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases	  December 2, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Kenya	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		The United States Joins Kenya for Third Cyber and Digital Dialogue in Nairobi	  November 27, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism Landberg’s Travel to Kenya and Somalia	  November 17, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Education and Culture  		This Global Entrepreneurship Week, and Every Week, the Academy for Women Entrepreneurs Works to Build Sustainable Businesses Worldwide	  November 17, 2023 

previous page12345…21next page

Back to Top
No. 17,538.

#### Ayres *v.*Armstrong et al.

Bill of Exceptions.— *Signed, by Judge after Time Fixed for Filing.*—Indorsement.—A bill of exceptions signed by the judge after the expiration of the time fixed for filing it cannot be considered,although there is an indorsement thereon by the judge that it was presented on a specified day within the time fixed.

*Same.*— Time *of Filing.*— The bill, to become a part of the record, must be filed after it has been signed by the judge and not before.

Erom the Huntington Circuit Court.

*T. L.*Lucas, for appellant.

*J. Q. Cline*and *C. W. Watkins,*for appellees.

Monks, J.

This was an appeal from a survey of real estate. The cause was tried, the court found against appellant and, over a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment on the finding.

The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The correctness of the court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial depends entirely upon the evidence. The motion for a new trial was overruled June 26, 1893, and ninety days given in which to file a hill of exceptions. A hill of exceptions, purporting to contain all the evidence given in the cause, was signed by the judge on the 24th of October, 1893, long after the expiration of the ninety days given. There is an indorsement on the bill of exceptions, signed by the judge, stating that the same was presented to him September 16, 1893; this, however, is no part of the record. *Cornell*v. *Hallett,*140 Ind. 634, and cases cited. The statute expressly requires that the date of presentation be stated in the bill of exceptions, not on its back or margin. It *264has been uniformly held that when the date of presentation is not stated in the bill of exceptions, we must consider the date when the bill was signed as the date of its presentation. *Cornell*v. *Hallett, supra,*and cases cited. A bill of exceptions, even if presented and signed within the time given, is no part of the record until it is filed. Elliott App. Proced., section 805, and cases cited. Such filing must be after the bill is signed by the judge. *Guiril*v. *Gillett,*124 Ind. 501. The record does not show that the bill of exceptions was filed.

Filed October 11, 1895.

It is true that it is stated in the record that the bill of exceptions was filed September 28, 1893, but not being at that time signed by the judge, it was not a bill of exceptions, and Jid not thereby become a part of the record. *Guirl*v. *Gillett, supra.*

It is clear, for the reason stated, that what purports to be a bill of exceptions, is not part of the record. No question is therefore presented as to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belmont Bancorp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wilbur R. Roat, President and Chief Executive of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Wilbur R. Roat                 
|Wilbur R. Roat                     
|President & Chief Executive Officer
|                                   
|August 13, 2004
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Christopher Anthony Davidson, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00066

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29694 ).
Memorandum Opinion deliver ed by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Christopher Anthony Davidson, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Travel to Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and France

# 									Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Travel to Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and France							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 26, 2024

Deputy Secretary Kurt M. Campbell will travel to Abuja, Nigeria; London, United Kingdom; and Paris, France April 29-May 3.  In Abuja, the Deputy Secretary will co-chair the sixth U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission (BNC) with Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar to discuss partnerships; security cooperation; shared prosperity; democracy, governance and accountability; and the movement of people.  He will also meet with senior Nigerian government officials, business leaders, and civil society representatives.

In London, the Deputy Secretary will participate in bilateral meetings on the Indo-Pacific and the AUKUS trilateral security partnership.  He will also meet with UK counterparts to discuss continued support for Ukraine, as well as efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza in conjunction with the release of hostages, and address the dire humanitarian situation.

In Paris, the Deputy Secretary will attend the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting (MCM), chaired by Japan, under the theme of “Co-creating the Flow of Change: Leading Global Discussions with Objective and Reliable Approaches Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Growth.”  In addition to his meetings at the OECD, the Deputy Secretary will meet with French counterparts on support for Ukraine, the PRC’s support for Russia’s war against Ukraine, and an Indo-Pacific dialogue.

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateFranceNigeriaOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
ACCIDENT REPORT 

Page | 1 / 3

Date: __________________   Time: __________________    Location: ____________________    

Weather Conditions (reported by local airport if available):

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Equipment: ___________________________________________________________________

Personnel on site and the appropriate duties:

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Description of accident:
 ACCIDENT REPORT 

Page | 2 / 3

Proposed cause of accident:   

Remedial actions to prevent future accidents:
 ACCIDENT REPORT 

Page | 3 / 3

Describe damages to aircraft if applicable:  

Describe any injuries or damages to property if applicable:

Name and role of person filling out report: __________________________________________

Date: _____________________________   Signature__________________________________
#### Charles H. WARDLOW, Jr., Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, Robert Murphy and Garland Watkins, Appellees.

No. 78-1283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1981.

Gilbride & Heller and James F. Gilbride, Miami, for appellant.

George F. Knox, Jr., City Atty. and Mik-ele S. Carter, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on June 26, 1979 (372 So.2d 976) affirming in part and reversing in part the final summary judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed July 30, 1981 and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed a portion of this court’s judgment.

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that this court’s mandate heretofore issued in this cause on August 13,1979 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed in this cause on June 26, 1979 except as is affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated July 30, 1981, 403 So.2d 414, is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the final summary judgment of the trial court is hereby reinstated. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (9.400 a Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure).
#### BADER BROTHERS TRANSFER & STORAGE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Eddie CAMPBELL et al., Respondents.

No. 46312.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 3, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 299 So.2d 114.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
#### SYSTEM COUNCIL U-4 OF the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO and Local Unions 359, 759, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-1365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 5, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William J. NOLEN, Appellant, v. Honorable Edward STACK, Broward County Sheriff, and City of Plantation, Florida, Appellees.

No. 73-1133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 1974.

Arthur M. Wolff of Wolff, Gora & Courtney, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach; and James W. Knight, Jr., of Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal or for a petition under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. *See*2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 36 and 15 Fla.Jur. Habeas Corpus §§ 10, 11 and 14.

The cause is remanded with respectful instructions to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

It is so ordered.

WALDEN, and DOWNEY, JJ., and WADDELL, TOM, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.