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



ENZON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
2007 Outside Director Compensation Plan
 Annual Retainers:
  
    
    a cash retainer of $25,000;
    
    an additional cash retainer of $18,000 for service as chair of the Audit and Finance Committee;
    
    an additional cash retainer of $8,000 for service as chair of the Compensation Committee;
    
    an additional cash retainer of $5,000 for service as chair of any other committee of the board;
    
    an additional cash retainer of $8,000 for service as a member of the Audit and
Finance Committee; and
    
    an additional cash retainer of $4,000 for service as a member of any other committee
of the board.
  Meeting Fees:
  
    
    a meeting attendance fee of $2,000 cash for each meeting of the full board attended
in-person;
    
    a meeting attendance fee of $1,000 cash for each meeting of the full board attended
by telephone;
    
    a meeting attendance fee of $1,000 cash for each meeting of a committee attended,
either in-person or by telephone.
 Annual Equity Grants:
  
    
    a grant of stock options on the first trading day of the calendar year with a value
of $75,000 (the Annual Option Grant). The number of options in the Annual Option
Grant will be based on a Black-Scholes value and will be at an exercise price equal to
the closing price of our Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on the date of grant.
The Annual Option Grant vests in one tranche on the first anniversary of the date of
grant if the recipient director remains on our board on that date. Once vested,
options granted pursuant to the Annual Option Grant expire on the 10th anniversary of
the date of grant; and
    
    a grant of restricted stock units on the first trading day after June 30 of each
calendar year with a value of $75,000 (the Annual Restricted Stock Grant). The
number of shares issued in the Annual Restricted Stock Grant will be equal to $75,000
divided by the closing price of our Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on the
date of grant. The shares covered by the Annual Restricted Stock Grant vest in three
equal tranches on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant if the
recipient director remains on our board on each such date.




---



##### 



Welcome Grant:
 
    
    Upon being initially elected to the board, a new elected director will receive a
welcome grant of stock options with a Black-Scholes value of $75,000 (the exercise
price of which will be equal to the closing price of our Common Stock on the Nasdaq
Global Market on the date of grant) and a grant of restricted stock units with a value
of $75,000 (the number of shares covered by such grant being equal to $75,000 divided
by the closing price of our Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market on the date of
grant). The options and restricted stock units included in the Welcome Grant vest in
three equal tranches on each of the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, if
the recipient director remains on the Board on each such date.
 Non-Executive Chairperson:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald PERRY.

No. 64853.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Gerald Perry, applying for writ of habeas corpus. Orleans Parish. No. 248-467.

Writ denied, the same being moot.
#### Johnny Edward GRANVILLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. KK-281.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 7, 1979.

*717Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Granville seeks review of his conviction for arson in the first degree, Section 806.-01(1), Florida Statutes (1977), contending the evidence was insufficient to establish damage to a “structure”, as that term is defined in Section 806.01(3), Florida Statutes (1977). We affirm.

The evidence showed that the window area of the jail where Granville was confined and the exhaust fan therein was damaged by fire. This is sufficient to show damage to the “structure” since the window is clearly an integral part of the structure itself. *K. R. M. v. State,*360 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) is distinguishable since therein only personal property within the structure was damaged. The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., J., concur.
#### § 441.357 Hearing procedures for waiver denials.

The procedures specified in § 430.18 of this subchapter apply to State requests for hearings on denials, renewals, or amendments of waivers for home and community-based services for individuals age 65 or older.
. . . . -...:..* .‘7>. .* ?. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

### TM.a 44iiele &II aamlatory

upen ysu to the ztstont. the& *there

shwld he a mbatatm oex@hyq - _ _
HomeAssisted Schools...Fukuoka, Japan: Fukuoka International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Fukuoka, Japan: Fukuoka International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 9, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +81-92-841-7601 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: admin@fis.ed.jp | Website: www.fis.ed.jp| Special needs information can be found at www.fis.ed.jp/student-life/wellbeing-student-services. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Fukuoka- 2024 Special Needs-Japan) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

**Fukuoka International School**(FIS) is a private, co-educational day school offering the internationally recognized International Baccalaureate Diploma to all students in grades 11 and 12, as well as providing students with the FIS high school diploma. FIS offers classes from early years (three-years-old) to grade 12. The school was founded in 1972 with a high school program added in 1990. The school year is divided into two semesters extending approximately from the 3rd week in August to the 3rd week in June. There are 180 “teaching and learning days” in the school year.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

JapanOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11477

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TERRY WAYNE KING, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-107-2-A

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Wayne King, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed

following his conviction for bank larceny. He argues that the

district court erred in denying a reduction in his offense level

for acceptance of responsibility and that his sentence is

unconstitutional under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). 

Reviewing the district court’s refusal to reduce King’s

offense level under a highly deferential standard, we hold that

the court did not err in denying King’s request for a reduction
No. 04-11477

-2-

for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v.

Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003). Because King

denied relevant conduct at the sentencing hearing, the district

court’s decision was not “without foundation.” See id.

King was sentenced pursuant to a mandatory guidelines scheme

held unconstitutional in Booker. The Government concedes that

the this issue was preserved through King’s objection in the

district court based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), and that it cannot show that the error was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Walters, 418

F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we VACATE King’s

sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing.
Exhibit 10.23.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE


WALTER INDUSTRIES, INC.


INVOLUNTARY SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN


 


This
First Amendment to the Walter Industries, Inc. Involuntary Severance
Benefit Plan is made and entered into by Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)
this 17th day of December, 2008, but is effective as of January 1, 2009.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the
Walter Industries, Inc. Involuntary Severance Benefit Plan (the “Plan”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the Company is authorized and empowered to
amend the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is
appropriate to amend the Plan in the manner indicated hereinbelow.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
Section 2.20(c) of Article II of the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:


 


(c)           The foregoing definition is intended
to meet the requirements for a “separation from service” from the Service
Recipient within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Code
and Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-1(h), and shall be interpreted,
construed, administered and applied consistently therewith. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, for purposes of this definition, the
definition of the term “Participating Employer” set forth below shall be
modified as provided in Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-1(h)(3),
provided that an 80% standard (in lieu of the default 50% standard) shall be
used for purposes of determining the service recipient/employer for this
purpose.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has
been executed and is effective as of the dates set forth hereinabove.


 


	
   

  	
  WALTER
  INDUSTRIES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:
  

  	
  Larry
  E. Williams

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior
  Vice President
§ 417.566 Other methods of allocation and apportionment. ( a ) *Justification.* A method of apportionment or allocation of costs, other than the methods prescribed in this subpart may be used if it results in a more accurate and equitable apportionment of allowable costs and is justifiable from an administrative and cost standpoint.
( b ) *Required approval.* ( 1 ) An HMO or CMP that desires to use an alternative method must submit a written request for CMS approval at least 90 days before the beginning of the period for which the different method is to be used.
( 2 ) If CMS approves use of a different method, the HMO or CMP may not revert to another method without first obtaining CMS's approval.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993]
No. 99-563.

#### Deering, Personal Representative of the Estate of Deering, Deceased *v.*Reich.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 423.800 Administration of subsidy program. ( a ) *Notification of eligibility for low-income subsidy.* CMS notifies the Part D sponsor offering the Part D plan, in which a subsidy eligible individual is enrolled, of the individual's eligibility for a subsidy under this section and the amount of the subsidy.
( b ) *Reduction of premium or cost-sharing by PDP sponsor or organization.* Based on information provided by CMS under paragraph (a) of this section, or obtained under paragraph (d) of this section, the Part D sponsor offering the Part D plan in which a subsidy eligible individual is enrolled must reduce the individual's premiums and cost-sharing as applicable, and provide information to CMS on the amount of those reductions, in a manner determined by CMS. The Part D sponsor must track the application of the subsidies under this subpart to be applied to the out-of-pocket threshold.
( c ) *Reimbursement for cost-sharing paid before notification of eligibility for low-income subsidy.* The Part D sponsor offering the Part D plan must reimburse subsidy eligible individuals, and organizations paying cost-sharing on behalf of such individuals, any excess premiums and cost-sharing paid by such individual or organization after the effective date of the individual's eligibility for a subsidy under this subpart.
( d ) *Use of the best available evidence process to establish cost-sharing.* Part D sponsors must— ( 1 ) Accept best available evidence as defined in § 423.772 of this part received from beneficiaries or other individuals acting directly on their behalf; and
( 2 ) Update the subsidy eligible individual's LIS status. and respond to requests for assistance in securing acceptable evidence of subsidy eligibility from beneficiaries or other individuals acting directly on their behalf in accordance with the process(es) established by CMS, and within the reasonable timeframe(s) as determined by CMS.
( e ) *Timeframe for refunds and recoveries due to retroactive adjustments to cost sharing.* Sponsors must process retroactive adjustments to cost-sharing for low-income subsidy eligible individuals and any resulting refunds and recoveries in accordance with the timeframe specified in § 423.466(a) of this part.
[70 FR 4525, Jan. 28, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 1549, Jan. 12, 2009; 75 FR 19825, Apr. 15, 2010]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Issuance of a New Executive Order to Expand Russia Sanctions Authorities

# 									Issuance of a New Executive Order to Expand Russia Sanctions Authorities							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

December 22, 2023

The United States, alongside our allies and partners, is committed to curtailing Russia’s use of the international financial system to advance its war in Ukraine.  As a next step in this effort, President Biden today signed an Executive Order to expand the United States’ ability to target financial institutions located outside of Russia that facilitate transactions involving Russia’s military-industrial base.  The new order also gives the United States the authority to ban importation to the United States of certain goods mined, produced, or harvested in Russia, even if substantially transformed in a third country. 

Today’s action underscores the need for financial institutions around the world to ensure they are not facilitating activities that support Russia’s war effort and implement due diligence practices that protect them from being exploited by Russia’s procurement networks.  The United States will hold accountable institutions that fail to implement appropriate measures.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctionsThe Secretary of StateUkraine

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James J. MOORE, Cornelius E. Lewis, Mark Brown.

No. 65100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re James E. Shields, applying for supervisory writs and order staying execution of sentence. Parish of Orleans. No. 266-867.

Writ granted. On showing made, it is ordered that attachment/warrant of relator be quashed.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Invocation of the OSCE Moscow Mechanism to Examine Reports of the Russian Federation’s Forcible Transfer and Deportation of Ukraine’s Children

# 									Invocation of the OSCE Moscow Mechanism to Examine Reports of the Russian Federation’s Forcible Transfer and Deportation of Ukraine’s Children							

Press Statement

Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson

March 30, 2023

The United States and 44 other countries, with the support of Ukraine, invoked the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Moscow Mechanism requesting that the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) establish an expert mission to examine allegations of the forced transfer of children in those parts of Ukraine’s territory temporarily controlled or occupied by Russia, as well as allegations that Ukraine’s children have been deported to the Russian Federation.  This expert mission will look into whether such actions and any abuses associated with or resulting from them violate international law, constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and/or contravene relevant OSCE commitments.  This mission will also be tasked with collecting, consolidating, and analyzing any evidence that could be shared with relevant accountability mechanisms as well as national, regional, or international courts or tribunals that may have jurisdiction.

This invocation follows OSCE’s April and July 2022 Moscow Mechanism Mission Reports, which were requested by the United States and 44 other countries.  Those investigations documented widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law by Russian Federation forces in Ukraine.  Those reports catalogued extensive evidence of direct targeting of civilians, attacks on medical facilities, rape, torture, summary executions, looting, and forced deportation of civilians to Russia, including children, constituting “clear patterns of serious violations of international humanitarian law attributable mostly to Russia’s armed forces...in the territories under the effective control of the Russian Federation.”

In times of war, children are among the most vulnerable and require special attention and protection.  Forcibly transferring or deporting children who have been separated from their families or legal guardians risks exposing them to further abuses.  We urge relevant authorities to cooperate fully with the expert mission and facilitate its work.  The United States and our partners remain steadfastly committed to supporting Ukraine and holding the Russian Federation to account for its unconscionable abuses.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDemocracyHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonOrganization for Security and Co-operation in EuropeRussiaUkraine

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Home2021 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Hovenier, Jeffery M – Republic of Kosovo – July 2021

# 									Hovenier, Jeffery M – Republic of Kosovo – July 2021							

Certificate of Competency

July 15, 2021

REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT:            Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST:                  Republic of Kosovo

CANDIDATE:     Jeffrey M. Hovenier

Jeffrey M. Hovenier, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, where he served as Chargé d’Affaires, a.i. from August 2018 through July 2019.  Prior to that, he was Acting Deputy Chief of Mission and Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany.   He has also served at U.S. missions in Croatia, Greece, Panama, Paraguay, and Peru; at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); on the staff of the UN Special Envoy for Kosovo Status; and on temporary assignments in Serbia, Montenegro, and the U.S. delegation to the 1999 Kosovo Peace Talks.  His Washington assignments include service as Director for Central and Southeastern European Affairs at the National Security Council and in the State Department’s European Bureau with responsibility for NATO and Central European Affairs. Mr. Hovenier has spent much of his career, spanning over 31 years, in the European and Eurasia region with a focus on security issues.  This extensive and substantive experience in the region, coupled with his management experience and demonstrated ability to lead large interagency teams as well as policy-oriented offices, makes him a well-qualified candidate to be the U.S. Ambassador to Kosovo.

Mr. Hovenier has received numerous Superior Honor and Senior Performance Awards and holds government honors from the Republic of Kosovo.  A native of Washington State, he has a Master’s degree from Georgetown University and a Bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University.  He speaks German, Greek, Croatian, and Spanish.

Back to Top
#### Michael PAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 00-358, 00-362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 23, 1981.

*1098John G. Stinson, Asst. Public Defender, Stark, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *State v. Luke,*382 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

McCORD, BOOTH, and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6488

DAVID MEYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; U.S. DISTRICT 

JUDGES; U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGES; U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOI PEAKE; 

CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE; SENIOR U.S. JUDGES, U.S. District Court for the 

Middle District of North Carolina; CLERK JOHN BRUBAKER, Greensboro Division,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00207-MOC)

Submitted: October 7, 2022 Decided: November 2, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6488 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

David Meyers seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

and has filed a second notice of appeal without designating the order being appealed. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. Because the district court has not resolved any of Meyers’ claims and there is no 

final order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Meyers’ motion for 

leave to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act without prepayment of fees as 

moot. Meyers’ motions to direct the district court to accept his handwritten complaints, to 

consolidate, and for an extension of time are also denied as moot. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6488 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 2