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


 


Movano Inc.


 


Director Compensation
Policy


 


Members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of Movano Inc. (the “Company”) who are not employees of the Company or any subsidiary of the Company (“non-employee
directors”) shall receive compensation for their services on the Board in accordance with this Director Compensation
Policy (this “Policy”).


 


 Cash Compensation




 


Each non-employee director shall be paid an annual cash retainer
of $50,000 prorated for partial periods and paid quarterly in arrears as soon as practicable following the end of each quarter
for which payment under this Policy is owed.


 


In addition to the annual cash retainer described above, the
chair of the Board, if he or she is a non-employee director, shall be paid an annual cash retainer of $25,000 and committee chairs
shall be paid the annual committee fees set forth below, in each case prorated for partial periods and paid quarterly in arrears
as soon as practicable following the end of each quarter for which payment under this Policy is owed.


 


	Audit Committee Chair: 	 	$	20,000	 
	Compensation Committee Chair: 	 	$	10,000	 






 


Expense Reimbursement


 


The compensation described in this Policy is in addition to
reimbursement of all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by directors in attending meetings of the Board.


 


Employee Directors


 


An employee of the Company who serves as a director receives
no additional compensation for such service.


 


Adopted February 10, 2021
HomeYemen

# Yemen

314 items

        -    Press Statement  		Revocation of the Terrorist Designations of Ansarallah	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 12, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 11, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 11, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 10, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 10, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 8, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 8, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Houthi Attacks Impacting Civilians	  Ned PriceFebruary 7, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 5, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 5, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Yemen	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Yemen	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Yemen	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Yemen	  March 11, 2020 

previous page1…2627282930…32next page

Back to Top
#### Jerry and Jeanette ZINN, etc., Appellants, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1979.

Jerry Zinn and Jeanette Zinn, pro se.

Edward J. Marko of Marko, Stephany, Lyons & Dow, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Our study of the briefs of the parties and consideration of the record convince us that *450the appellants have failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the decision of the Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.
June 27, 2017



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PATRICK KAPTCHINSKIE AND LAURA KAPTCHINSK IE , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 15

- 01080

- CV V.
THE ESTATE OF CHARLE S O. KIRCHNER, DECEA SED, Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed October 9, 2015 in favor of appellee, t he Estate of Charles O. Kirchner, Deceased

— a misnomer for Mira Huffman, in her capacity as independent administratrix of Charles Kirchner’s estate

— was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the rec ord and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant s Patrick Kaptchinskie and Laura Kaptchinskie jointly and

sever ally to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 408.207 Billing and payment procedures. ( a ) *Adding and removing enrollees.* The State or local government agency must transmit an input file containing addition and removal records electronically to CMS as follows: ( 1 ) Input files must be transmitted at least once each calendar month, but may be transmitted as often as once a day.
( 2 ) CMS will not add or remove enrollees retroactively, except for removals upon the death of an enrollee.
( 3 ) The State or local government agency must pay the SMI premium surcharge for each eligible enrollee who is included in the agreement for the time period beginning with the month the enrollee is added and continuing through the month the State or local government agency informs CMS that the enrollee is to be removed, the month the enrollee's Part B coverage terminates, or the month of the enrollee's death, whichever comes first.
( b ) *Payment and grace period.* Payment must be made to CMS as follows: ( 1 ) Payment to CMS must be received by CMS by the first day of each month.
( 2 ) There is a 10-day grace period for receipt of payment.
( 3 ) Payment must be made to CMS via electronic funds transfer.
( c ) *Late payment penalties.* CMS may assess interest for any payment it does not receive by the first day of the month as follows: ( 1 ) Interest will be assessed at the SMI trust fund rate as computed for new investments in accordance with section 1841(c) of the Act.
( 2 ) Interest will be waived if the full payment is received by the 10th day of the month in which it is due.
( 3 ) Interest will be calculated and assessed in 30-day increments.
( 4 ) Interest will be assessed on the balance of the amount billed that remains unpaid at the expiration of the grace period and unpaid balances from prior periods.
( 5 ) Interest will continue to accrue on unpaid amounts until the balance is paid in full.
( d ) *Disagreement over billing amounts or interest.* If the State or local government agency disagrees with the amount assessed in a billing statement or interest charge, it must notify CMS as follows: ( 1 ) The State or local government agency must provide evidence suitable to CMS to substantiate its claim.
( 2 ) The State or local government agency must continue to make full payment while CMS evaluates the evidence provided.
( 3 ) Credit for payment amounts or interest that CMS determines to be due to the State or local government agency will be reflected as an adjustment in subsequent bills, effective on the date the corrected amount would have been due.
#### § 800.227 Investment.

The term *investment* means the acquisition of equity interest, including contingent equity interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>    1
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                                     349,476
<SECURITIES>                                               354,844
<RECEIVABLES>                                              180,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                635,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           1,591,749
<PP&E>                                                     85,156
<DEPRECIATION>                                             60,810
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,789,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      216,166
<BONDS>                                                    47,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                2,233,203
<COMMON>                                                   231,699
<OTHER-SE>                                                 4,938,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,789,178
<SALES>                                                    1,271,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           1,271,981
<CGS>                                                      455,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              1,158,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         7,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            134,933
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        134,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                               0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3290 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3290

To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management for each 
                 of the fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 1996

Mr. Cooley of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Hansen, and 
 Mr. Regula) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Land Management for each 
                 of the fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 318(a) of 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1748(a)) 
is amended by striking out ``October 1, 1978'' and by inserting in lieu 
thereof ``October 1, 2002''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 412.513 Patient classification system. ( a ) *Classification methodology.* CMS classifies specific inpatient hospital discharges from long-term care hospitals by long-term care diagnosis-related groups (LTC-DRGs) to ensure that each hospital discharge is appropriately assigned based on essential data abstracted from the inpatient bill for that discharge.
( b ) *Assignment of discharges to LTC-DRGs.* ( 1 ) The classification of a particular discharge is based, as appropriate, on the patient's age, sex, principal diagnosis (that is, the diagnosis established after study to be chiefly responsible for causing the patient's admission to the hospital), secondary diagnoses, procedures performed, and the patient's discharge status.
( 2 ) Each discharge from a long-term care hospital is assigned to only one LTC-DRG (related, except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, to the patient's principal diagnosis), regardless of the number of conditions treated or services furnished during the patient's stay.
( 3 ) When the discharge data submitted by a hospital show a surgical procedure unrelated to a patient's principal diagnosis, the bill is returned to the hospital for validation and reverification. The LTC-DRG classification system provides a LTC-DRG, and an appropriate weighting factor, for those cases for which none of the surgical procedures performed are related to the principal diagnosis.
( c ) *Review of LTC-DRG assignment.* ( 1 ) A hospital has 60 days after the date of the notice of the initial assignment of a discharge to a LTC-DRG to request a review of that assignment. The hospital may submit additional information as a part of its request.
( 2 ) The intermediary reviews that hospital's request and any additional information and decides whether a change in the LTC-DRG assignment is appropriate. If the intermediary decides that a different LTC-DRG should be assigned, the case will be reviewed by the appropriate QIO as specified in § 476.71(c)(2) of this chapter.
( 3 ) Following the 60-day period described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the hospital may not submit additional information with respect to the DRG assignment or otherwise revise its claim.
# Senegal

109 items

        -    		Travel to Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal, November 15-20, 2021	   
        -    Special Briefing  		Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of African Affairs Ervin Massinga on Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Travel to Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal	  Ervin MassingaNovember 12, 2021Via Teleconference 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal	  Ned PriceNovember 11, 2021 
        -    TIAS  		Senegal (21-909) – Millennium Challenge Compact	  September 9, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Senegal	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Senegal	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Senegal	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Senegal National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 4, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Senegal	  March 30, 2021 
        -    		FY 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Vulnerable Populations in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal	  March 16, 2021 

previous page1…67891011next page

Back to Top
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 3711

_____________________________ S COTT H AMILTON , Appellant,

v.

M ICHELE H AMILTON , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Stephen A. Pitre , Judge

. March 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jill W. Warren of Autumn Beck Blackledge, PLLC, Pensacola
, for Appellant.

Charles F. Beall, Jr., of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola; Jennifer L. Bushnell of Jennifer Lee Bushnell, PLLC., Pensacola
, for Appell ee

.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement, File No. 333-00909.


                                                    /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Seattle, Washington
August 20, 1999


                                       38
<PAGE>

CORPORATE OFFICE
8561 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
Phone:   (425) 882-2555
Fax:     (425) 861-0173
E-mail:  info@alcide.com
Website: www.alcide.com



AUDITORS
Arthur Andersen LLP
801 Second Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA   98104



COMMON STOCK LISTING
NASDAQ
(Symbol - ALCD)



TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
American Securities Transfer and Trust, Incorporated
12039 W. Alameda Parkway, Suite Z-2
Lakewood, Colorado  80228


                                       39
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 First Equity Properties, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gene S. Bertcher, Vice President, Treasurer, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Acting Principal Executive
Officer 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 as amended; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher                                                                                              
|                      |  |     |  | /s/ Gene S. Bertcher Vice President, Treasurer,
Acting Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
REGULATORY EV ALVA nON

Directorate Identifier: 2010 -NM- 116__ -AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

I

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (Xl

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it <}ppropriate to include specific

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,331,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,500,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                    69,175
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,263,723
<PP&E>                                         782,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                 593,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,226,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,640,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,235,674
<COMMON>                                        73,429
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,737,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,226,409
<SALES>                                      2,688,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,688,400
<CGS>                                        1,574,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,237,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,927)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                435,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                   178,731
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            257,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   257,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
#### Curtis RAINES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 20, 1979.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Warren S. Schwartz, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosen-blatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of *State v. Jones,*327 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976).
#### Manuel QUINONES, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and Paul S. Guglietta and Mary Primeuara, Respondents. Paul S. GUGLIETTA and Mary Primeuara Guglietta, his wife, Petitioners, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and Manuel Quinones, Respondents.

Nos. 78-1734, 78-1962.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 30, 1979.

*855Sally Weintraub, Miami, for Guglietta.

High, Stack, Lazenby & Bender and Alan R. Dakan, Miami, for Quinones.

Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight and A. Blackwell Stieglitz, Miami, for Farm Bureau.

Before PEARSON, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are presented with two petitions for writs of certiorari which, in essence, allege that the trial court has failed to follow this court’s directive in *Indiana Insurance Company v. Collins,*359 So.2d 916 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The situation here is identical in all essential respects to that in *Collins.*

Petitioner Quinones sued Florida Farm Bureau for uninsured motorist benefits, a suit for such benefits being required by his contract with the insurer. Florida Farm Bureau filed a third party complaint claiming entitlement to subrogation against Paul S. Guglietta and Mary Primeuara Guglietta, his wife, as the tortfeasors in the collision out of which Quinones is claiming uninsured motorist coverage. Quinones moved to strike the third party complaint for failure to state a cause of action and the Gugliettas moved for dismissal of the third party complaint. The trial court entered orders denying each of these motions.

It is clear from the *Collins*case and cases cited therein that the insurer does not, at this stage of the proceedings, have a cause of action against the Gugliettas. Thereupon, the writ of certiorari is granted and the orders denying the motions to dismiss and to strike for failure to state a cause of action are quashed. Pursuant to the procedure set forth in *Collins,*the trial court is required to dismiss the third party complaint without prejudice to renew the same at a subsequent stage in this proceeding if it shall appear at that time that the insurer has settled, or been held liable, on the plaintiff’s claim.

It is so ordered.