alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 27.1417 Reimbursement fund.

The Relocation Payment Clearinghouse will establish and administer an account that will fund the costs for the transition of this band to the 3.7 GHz Service after an auction for the 3.7 GHz Service concludes. Licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service shall pay their *pro rata* share of six months' worth of estimated transition costs into a reimbursement fund, administered by the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse, shortly after the auction and then every six months until the transition is complete. The Relocation Payment Clearinghouse shall draw from the reimbursement fund to pay approved, invoiced claims, consistent with § 27.1418. If the reimbursement fund does not have sufficient funds to pay approved claims before a six-month replenishment, the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse shall provide 3.7 GHz Service licensees with 30 days' notice of the additional *pro rata* shares they must contribute. At the end of the transition, the Relocation Payment Clearinghouse shall refund any unused amounts to 3.7 GHz Service licensees according to their *pro rata* shares.
exv10w32



 






Exhibit 10.32




Summary
of 2007 Named Executive Officer Compensation



The
following shows the current annual salary for eLoyalty’s President and Chief Executive Officer,
the Chief Financial Officer and each of the next three most highly compensated executive officers
other than the President and Chief Executive Officer:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Kelly D. Conway:

	 	$	480,000	 
	Karen Bolton:

	 	$	300,000	 
	Christopher J. Danson:

	 	$	300,000	 
	Steven C. Pollema:

	 	$	300,000	 
	Steven H. Shapiro

	 	$	285,000	 





All of the above executive officers have target bonus percentages as set forth in their
employment agreements with eLoyalty other than Mr. Shapiro.



Ms. Bolton also has certain provisions in her Employment Agreement that compensate her in 2007 as a
result of her transition from status as an Australian expatriate to status as a United States
national, including payments for taxes, personal travel and certain moving and living arrangements.



Additional information concerning the compensation of these officers is set forth in the Proxy
Statement on Form 14A filed by eLoyalty Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7309** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOSEPH ZIADEH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distr ict of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Chief District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00273

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : February 2 9 , 2012 Decided: March 16, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Gregg Robert Nivala, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Ziadeh appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motions to modify final restitution payment and to direct the Government to stay the tax lien sale of certain property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Ziadeh , No. 3:02

- cr - 00273

- JRS

1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### §§ 25.229-25.249 [Reserved]
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________
No. 23

- 30590 Summary Calendar

____________ Fred Howard, Jr.,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus
City of Shreveport; D. J. Gaut, individually and as an employee of the City of Shreveport ; James N. Roberts, individually and as an employee of the City of Shreveport ; Joey Hester, individually and as an employee of the City o

f Shreveport ; William Scott, individually and as an employee of the City of Shreveport ; T. W. Oster,

Defendants

— Appellees

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:01

- CV

- 2303

______________________________
Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Fred Howard , Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 117952 , moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP ) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 13, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30590 Document: 00516965199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023No. 23

- 30590

2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. His motion was filed following the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Howard ’s IFP motion challe nge s the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘le gal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
Howard contends that his judgment is void and that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4), because his § 1983 proceeding was reassigned
from one district court judge to another and the judge to whom the case was assigned lacked jurisdiction to sign and enter the judgment of dismissal

. Howard does not make the requisite showing that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See H

oward , 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion to proceed
IFP is DENIED , and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 575 U.S. 532, 537 (2015)

. Howard is WARNED that if he accum ulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 23-30590 Document: 00516965199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2023
#### §§ 68.400-68.412 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Allissa Mills, Principal Executive Officer of Veridigm, Inc.(the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. November 19, 2007   By:/s/ Allissa Mills -------------------------------- Allissa Mills, Principal Executive Officer, and Director
#### § 61.136 Revocation of concurrences.

A concurrence may be revoked by a revocation notice or cancelled by a new concurrence. A revocation notice or a new concurrence, if less broad in scope than the concurrence it cancels, must bear an effective date not less than 45 days after its receipt by the Commission. A revocation notice is not given a serial number, but must specify the number of the concurrence to be revoked and the name of the carrier in whose favor the concurrence was issued. It must be in the following format:

Revocation Notice

(Name of carrier ____________)

(Post office address ______________)

(Date) ___________, 19__.

Secretary,

*Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.*

Effective _____________, 19__ FCC Concurrence No. __, issued by (Name of concurring carrier) in favor of (Name of issuing carrier) is hereby cancelled and revoked. Rates and regulations of (Name of concurring carrier) and its connecting carriers will thereafter be found in Tariff FCC No. __ issued by _________ (If the concurring carrier has ceased operations, the revocation notice must so indicate.)

(Name of carrier)

By

(Title)
§ 54.612 Eligible services. ( a ) *Eligible services.* Subject to the provisions of §§ 54.600 through 54.602 and 54.607 through 54.633, eligible health care providers may request support under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program for any advanced telecommunications or information service that enables health care providers to post their own data, interact with stored data, generate new data, or communicate, by providing connectivity over private dedicated networks or the public internet for the provision of health information technology.
( b ) *Eligibility of dark fiber.* A consortium of eligible health care providers may receive support for “dark” fiber where the customer, not the service provider, provides the modulating electronics, subject to the following limitations: ( 1 ) Support for recurring charges associated with dark fiber is only available once the dark fiber is “lit” and actually being used by the health care provider. Support for non-recurring charges for dark fiber is only available for fiber lit within the same funding year, but applicants may receive up to a one-year extension to light fiber, consistent with § 54.626(b), if they provide documentation to the Administrator that construction was unavoidably delayed due to weather or other reasons.
( 2 ) Requests for proposals that solicit dark fiber solutions must also solicit proposals to provide the needed services over lit fiber over a time period comparable to the duration of the dark fiber lease or indefeasible right of use.
( 3 ) If an applicant intends to request support for equipment and maintenance costs associated with lighting and operating dark fiber, it must include such elements in the same request for proposal as the dark fiber so that the Administrator can review all costs associated with the fiber when determining whether the applicant chose the most cost-effective bid.
( c ) *Dark and lit fiber maintenance costs.* ( 1 ) Both individual and consortium applicants may receive support for recurring maintenance costs associated with leases of dark or lit fiber.
( 2 ) Consortium applicants may receive support for upfront payments for maintenance costs associated with leases of dark or lit fiber, subject to the limitations in § 54.616.
( d ) *Reasonable and customary installation charges.* Eligible health care providers may obtain support for reasonable and customary installation charges for eligible services, up to an undiscounted cost of $5,000 per eligible site.
( e ) *Upfront charges for service provider deployment of new or upgraded facilities.* ( 1 ) Participants may obtain support for upfront charges for service provider deployment of new or upgraded facilities to serve eligible sites.
( 2 ) Support is available to extend service provider deployment of facilities up to the “demarcation point,” which is the boundary between facilities owned or controlled by the service provider, and facilities owned or controlled by the customer.
Order entered September 17, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00725-CV

IN RE JEROME JOHNSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH

ORDER

Before the Court is relator’s September 6, 2019 pro se objection to the Court’s order and 

memorandum opinion denying relief. Appellant is represented by counsel. Appellant is not 

entitled to hybrid representation. See Miniel v. State, 831 S.W.2d 310, 313 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1992). Accordingly, appellant’s motion is DENIED. 

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
§ 24.55 Antenna structures; air navigation safety. Licensees that own their antenna structures must not allow these antenna structures to become a hazard to air navigation. In general, antenna structure owners are responsible for registering antenna structures with the FCC if required by part 17 of this chapter, and for installing and maintaining any required marking and lighting. However, in the event of default of this responsibility by an antenna structure owner, each FCC permittee or licensee authorized to use an affected antenna structure will be held responsible by the FCC for ensuring that the antenna structure continues to meet the requirements of part 17 of this chapter. *See* § 17.6 of this chapter. ( a ) *Marking and lighting.* Antenna structures must be marked, lighted and maintained in accordance with part 17 of this chapter and all applicable rules and requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.
( b ) *Maintenance contracts.* Antenna structure owners (or licensees and permittees, in the event of default by an antenna structure owner) may enter into contracts with other entities to monitor and carry out necessary maintenance of antenna structures. Antenna structure owners (or licensees and permittees, in the event of default by an antenna structure owner) that make such contractual arrangements continue to be responsible for the maintenance of antenna structures in regard to air navigation safety.
[61 FR 4366, Feb. 6, 1996]
No. 11-9988.

#### Munez *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 3

- 0149 LT Case No. 16

- 2 021

- CF

- 6865

- A

_____________________________ M ARSAI D EVONTA C RUZ , Appellant,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador, Judge

. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

October 24, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

.

S OUD , M AC I VER , and P RATT , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________
#### Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, a corporation, *Plaintiff in*Error, vs. W. A. Harris, *Defendant in Error.*

142 So. 656.

Division B.

Decision filed June 20, 1932.

*James N.*Daniel, for Plaintiff in Error;

*John U. Carter, John H. Carter, Jr.,*and *A. D. Carmichael,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, o’rdered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed. •

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.9





QUIDEL CORPORATION 
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD GRANT NOTICE
(2016 Equity Incentive Plan)
Pursuant to Section 6.11 of the Quidel Corporation 2016 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and Quidel Corporation’s (the “Company”) deferred compensation programs (including the employee bonus election form and the director fee payment election form), the Company hereby awards to Recipient a Restricted Stock Unit Award covering the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth below (the “Award”).  This Award will be evidenced by this Grant Notice and the attached Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions (the “Terms and Conditions”).  
	
				
	Recipient:
	 
	 
	 

	Date of Grant:
	 
	 
	 

	Vesting Commencement Date:
	 
	 
	 

	Beginning Fair Market Value per Share:
	 
	 
	 

	Number of Shares Subject Converted RSUs:    
	 
	 
	 

	Number of Shares Subject Premium RSUs:
	 
	 
	 

	Beginning Fair Market Value per Share:
	$
	 
	 






Vesting and Settlement:     Subject to the applicable tax withholding requirements, the Restricted Stock Units will vest and be delivered at the time set forth on Exhibit A.
Additional Terms/Acknowledgements:  The undersigned acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to, this Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions, the Plan, the Plan Prospectus and the deferred compensation programs (including the applicable election forms).   In the event of any conflict between the provisions of your Award and those of the deferred compensation program, the provisions of the deferred compensation program will control.  You further acknowledge that as of the Date of Grant, this Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions, the Plan, the Plan Prospectus and the deferred compensation plan set forth the entire understanding between the Company and you regarding the acquisition of shares of Common Stock of the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on that subject with the exception of (i) Awards previously granted and delivered to Recipient under the Plan, and (ii) the Other Agreements listed below.  You further acknowledge that there may be adverse tax consequences upon the vesting or settlement of the Restricted Stock Units or disposition of the underlying shares and that you have been advised to consult a tax advisor prior to such vesting, settlement or disposition.  
	
					
	Other Agreements:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 



	
			
	QUIDEL CORPORATION
	 
	RECIPIENT:




	
							
	By:
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Signature
	 
	Signature

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title:
	 
	 
	 
	Date:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 






		
	Attachments: 
	Restricted Stock Unit Award Terms and Conditions and 2016 Equity Incentive Plan











Exhibit A









ATTACHMENT I
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT
AWARD AGREEMENT
{"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":"21-1961: BAKER v. RAIMONDO [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=\"VrZtnSaLEY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-21-1961-baker-v-raimondo-opinion-21-1961-opinion-6-13-2022_1964164\/\">21-1961: BAKER v. RAIMONDO [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-21-1961-baker-v-raimondo-opinion-21-1961-opinion-6-13-2022_1964164\/embed\/#?secret=VrZtnSaLEY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1961: BAKER v. RAIMONDO [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VrZtnSaLEY\" 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":"OPINION Posted: BAKER v. RAIMONDO [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1961 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
441P15

#### Arnold Powell v. Bourlon & Davis

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Request for an Order to Compel (COAP15-866)

1. Dismissed

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition in the Alternative for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

2. Dismissed