alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2019-1149: Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9otN3t2PfY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2019-1149-cardionet-llc-v-infobionic-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2019-1149: Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2019-1149-cardionet-llc-v-infobionic-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=9otN3t2PfY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2019-1149: Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"9otN3t2PfY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc (mp3) Appeal Number: 2019-1149 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
§ 302-11.301 How must I request reimbursement for the expenses I incur for my residence transactions? To request reimbursement for the expenses you incur for your residence transaction, you must: ( a ) Send your claim for reimbursement and documentation of expenses to your old official station for review and approval unless otherwise specified by your agency, and
( b ) Follow your agency's procedures and submit appropriate voucher(s) along with any claim applications that your agency may require with appropriate documents specified in § 302-11.302.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Desmond WARD, a/k/a David A. King, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7745.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Stephen Howard Rosen, Miami, Florida, for Appellant.

Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ward has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-*36bility and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### Samuel E. TOOTLE, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colonel Colleen McGUIRE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-3162.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 24, 2004.

Samuel E. Tootle, II, Diberville, MS, pro se.

Jackie A. Rapstine, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Respondent-Appellee.

*380Before BRISCOE and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

On February 20, 2004, this court ordered Mr. Tootle to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Mr. Tootle filed a timely response, which we have reviewed. We now dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Tootle, a former inmate of the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted before a general court-martial of numerous offenses and was sentenced to a term of 3140 days of confinement. As is proper in the case of a § 2241 petition, he does not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence, only the execution of his sentence. *See Bradshaw v. Story,*86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996). Specifically, he complains that he was improperly classified upon his admission to the USDB; improperly denied employment; and retaliated against for exercising his right to appeal his sentence by being assigned to a non-working detail, all of which caused him to earn fewer credits toward sentence reduction than he would otherwise have earned. His § 2241 petition seeks injunctive relief against any future retaliation, and an award of Good Conduct Time and Extra Good Conduct Time credits.

On October 19, 2003, during the pen-dency of this appeal, Mr. Tootle completed his sentence and was released from incarceration at USDB. A claim for good time credits becomes moot where the prisoner has been released and asserts no continuing incarceration or period of probation or parole that can be the subject of judicial relief. *See generally Aragon v. Shanks,*144 F.3d 690, 691-92 (10th Cir.1998). Mr. Tootle’s claim for good time credits is therefore moot.

Nor does Mr. Tootle have any continuing claim for injunctive relief against future retaliation. His release from incarceration has mooted these claims as well. *See Wirsching v. Colorado,*360 F.3d 1191, 1195, at *4 (10th Cir.2004).

As there are no cognizable claims before us, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Mr. Tootle’s “Motion to Attach Documents to the Record” is denied.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Dr. Robert D. Childs to Retire as Chancellor of the iCollege at National Defense University
 By Patricia Coopersmith
                      www.ndu.edu
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1529 Judicial review.

Judicial review of final agency decisions on awards may be sought as provided in 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44646-44652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-39]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-39 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 1, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[[Page 44647]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.030


[[Page 44648]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.031


[[Page 44649]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.033


[[Page 44650]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.034


[[Page 44651]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.035


[[Page 44652]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.036

[FR Doc. 06-6730 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/switzrld.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/switzrld.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### § 32.6124 General purpose computers expense.

This account shall include the costs of personnel whose principal job is the physical operation of general purpose computers and the maintenance of operating systems. This excludes the cost of preparation of input data or the use of outputs which are chargeable to the accounts appropriate for the activities being performed. Also excluded are costs incurred in planning and maintaining application systems and databases for general purpose computers. (See also § 32.6720, General and administrative.) Separately metered electricity for general purpose computers shall also be included in this account.

[67 FR 5695, Feb. 6, 2002]
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.12


Amendment to the
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc.
2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan




WHEREAS, Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. (“Company”) maintains the 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan, initially effective as of April 30, 2015, as amended from time to time (“Plan”); 
WHEREAS, pursuant and subject to Article 21 of the Plan, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company is authorized to amend the Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date this amendment is approved by the Board, in the following respect: 
		
	1.
	Section 22.2 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




22.2    Tax Withholding. 


(a) Maximum Tax Withholding.    The Company shall have the power and the right to deduct or withhold, or require a Participant to remit to the Company, up to the maximum statutory amount to satisfy applicable federal, state and local tax withholding requirements, domestic or foreign, with respect to any taxable event arising as a result of this Plan. 


(b) Share Withholding.    With respect to withholding required upon the exercise of Options or SARs, upon the lapse of restrictions on Restricted Stock, upon the settlement of Restricted Stock Units, or upon the achievement of performance goals related to Performance Share Units, or any other taxable event arising as a result of an Award granted hereunder (collectively referred to as “Share Payment”), the Company, in its discretion, may withhold from a Share Payment the number of Shares having a Fair Market Value on the date the withholding is to be determined equal to up to the maximum statutory withholding requirement.


* * * * * * * * * * * *
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the effective dates provided herein. 
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. 


By:     /s/ Stanley E. McCormick, Jr.        
Executive Vice President
Corporate Counsel and Secretary


January 26, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              938350
<SECURITIES>                                        274229
<RECEIVABLES>                                         8371
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1153140
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1908858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                49195
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             12610
<OTHER-SE>                                          773030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        785640
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     42560
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        35772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      16468
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         12968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.01
        


</TABLE>
No. 10-10793.

#### Oliver et ux. *v.*Bankfirst Financial Services.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
see-ex1014_12.htm



 

Exhibit 10.14

Fees to be Paid to the Non-Employee Directors

of

Sealed Air Corporation (the “Corporation”)

2017

Members of the Board of Directors who are not officers or employees of the Corporation or any subsidiary of the Corporation (“non-employee directors”) shall be paid the following directors’ fees in cash, payable quarterly in arrears on or about the first day of the succeeding calendar quarter, which fees shall be in addition to retainers payable to non-employee directors under the 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan:


	
 
	
(i)
	
for each non-employee director who is designated as chair of the Audit Committee, a fee of Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($6,250) per calendar quarter for serving as chair, and for each other member of the Audit Committee, a fee of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per calendar quarter for serving as a member;





	
 
	
(ii)
	
for each non-employee director who is designated as chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, a fee of Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,750) per calendar quarter for serving as chair, and for each other member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, a fee of One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Five Dollars ($1,875) per calendar quarter for serving as a member;





	
 
	
(iii)
	
for each non-employee director who is designated as chair of the Organization and Compensation Committee, a fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per calendar quarter for serving as chair, and for each other member of the Organization and Compensation Committee, a fee of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per calendar quarter for serving as a member;





	
 
	
(iv)
	
a fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) per day for special assignments undertaken by a non-employee director at the request of the Board or any committee of the Board or for attending a director education program; and





	
 
	
(v)
	
meeting fees as approved by the Board of Directors for non-employee directors who serve on any special committee or for attendance at special meetings of the Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors in the event of a major transaction, etc.




The amount of the Annual Retainer (as defined in the 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan) to be paid to the non-employee directors of the Corporation who are elected at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is $115,000 payable in shares of Common Stock plus $90,000 payable in cash unless the non-employee director elects payment of the cash portion in shares of Common Stock.

The amount of the Annual Retainer to be paid to the independent Chairman of the Board is $190,000 payable in shares of Common Stock plus $190,000 payable in cash unless the Chairman elects payment of the cash portion in shares of Common Stock.

Under the Sealed Air Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors, a non-employee director may elect to defer all or part of his or her Annual Retainer until the director retires from the Board. None of the other fees mentioned above are eligible to be deferred.
#### § 302-12.117 May we take title to an employee's residence?

No, you may not take title to an employee's residence except as specifically provided by statute. The statutes which form the basis for the provisions of this part do not provide such authority.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18344, Apr. 1, 2011]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-2263: BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ilV3T42Lz2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-01-2020-19-2263-braemar-manufacturing-llc-v-the-scottcare-corporation-opinion-19-2263-opinion-7-1-2020_1612624\/\">19-2263: BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-01-2020-19-2263-braemar-manufacturing-llc-v-the-scottcare-corporation-opinion-19-2263-opinion-7-1-2020_1612624\/embed\/#?secret=ilV3T42Lz2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-2263: BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ilV3T42Lz2\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: BRAEMAR MANUFACTURING, LLC v. THE SCOTTCARE CORPORATION [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-2263 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Manuel 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 14, 2015

No. 04-14-00785-CV

Mary Ann CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15957

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The court has reviewed the motions filed by appellant on May 12, 2015, which she styled 

as follows: “Notice of Motion for Spousal Maintenance,” “Motion for Void on the Agreement 

for Final Divorce Signed on Oct 30, 2013 by Judge Canales,” and “Motion for Counsel Joseph 

Appelt Malpractice Insurance.” We ORDER that the motions be DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 11-9793.

#### Schleining *v.*Thomas, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.