alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      10.1**





**DESCRIPTION
      OF DIRECTORS AND**


**NAMED
      EXECUTIVE OFFICERS COMPENSATION**





In
      accordance with the “Frequently Asked Questions” bulletin posted by the staff of
      the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on
      November 23, 2004 on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, we are
      disclosing the following information that the Securities and Exchange Commission
      may deem to be material definitive agreements with our directors and executive
      officers.





Bancorp
      does not compensate its directors. Each director of Bancorp is also a director
      of the Bank. Meetings of the directors of Bancorp are held immediately before
      or
      after meetings of the directors of the Bank. In 2005, directors of the Bank
      received $2,000 per meeting of the Board of Directors attended in 2005.
      Additionally, each non-employee member of a committee of the Board of Directors
      of the Bank received a fee of $750 per committee meeting. A total of $168,153
      in
      the year ended December 31, 2005 was paid as directors’ fees and committee fees
      for the Bank





We
      have
      not entered into employment agreements with any of the executive officers,
      who
      are employed on an at-will basis. In 2006, the Bank’s executive officers will
      earn the annual base salaries set forth opposite their names below and will
      be
      entitled to a bonus, if any, as determined by the Compensation
      Committee:





Name
            
            Title
            
            
            2006
                SalaryAlan
                J. Hyatt
            
            President
                and Chief Executive Officer
            
            $
            265,000Melvin
                E. Meekins, Jr.
            
            Executive
                Vice President
            
            $
            315,000S.
                Scott Kirkley
            
            Senior
                Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
            
            $
            225,000Thomas
                G. Bevivino
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer
            
            $
            159,000





The
      executive officers are entitled to participate in the Bank’s 401(k) Plan and in
      an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The Bank makes a matching contribution of
      50%
      of each executive officer’s 401(k) Plan contribution up to 6% of such executive
      officer’s salary, and an additional non-matching contribution at the discretion
      of the Board of Directors.
#### § 665.122 [Reserved]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00723

- CR

Michael P. CARACHEO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Tria l Court No. CR17

- 040 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states the underlying case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The trial court’s judgment, however, recites appellant pled not guilty and was found guilty by a jury. Accordingly, the trial court’s

certification of defendant’ s right of appeal is defective. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ; Sanchez v. State , 109 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). It is therefore ORDERED that the trial court amend the certification and cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended certification within twenty days from the date of this order

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 26th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
From: Jacquelyn Lopez

To: Evan Christopher

Cc: Jonathan Peterson; Kaveri Sharma; Robert Knop; Neven Stipanovic; Terrell Stansbury; Donna Mitchell

Subject: RE: AOR 2023-09 (Senator Catherine Cortez Masto) - Request for Extension

Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:31:44 AM

Hi Evan,

Approved.

Jackie

Jacquelyn (“Jackie”) Lopez

Elias Law Group LLP

Partner

250 Mass. Ave NW Ste 400

Washington DC 20001

202-968-4514

jlopez@elias.law

CONFIDENTIAL: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended

recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received

this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system

From: Evan Christopher <EChristopher@fec.gov> 

Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 1:41 PM

To: Jacquelyn Lopez <jlopez@elias.law>

Cc: Jonathan Peterson <jpeterson@elias.law>; Kaveri Sharma <ksharma@elias.law>; Robert Knop

<rknop@fec.gov>; Neven Stipanovic <NStipanovic@fec.gov>; Terrell Stansbury

<TStansbury@fec.gov>; Donna Mitchell <DMitchell@fec.gov>

Subject: AOR 2023-09 (Senator Catherine Cortez Masto) - Request for Extension

Ms. Lopez,

The Commission has asked the Office of General Counsel to request an extension from the

Requestor in this matter until January 12, 2024. To the extent it is relevant to your client’s

determination, the Commission is making this request sua sponte and notwithstanding OGC’s

internal timeline for the AOR.

If your client approves the Commission’s request for an extension, please let us know in writing by

response to this message.

Thank you,

Evan 

Evan R. Christopher

Attorney | Policy Division
Office of General Counsel

Federal Election Commission
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1085 Surface-supplied air diving.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.425 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/section-1910.425).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7358

ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu)

Submitted: October 5, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Roosevelt Cornell Sanders appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons state d by the district court. See

Sanders v. O’Brien , No. 7:09-cv-00026-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. June 30,

2009). We deny as moot Sanders’ motions to expedite 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 18.93 Scope of regulations. ( a ) The provisions in this subpart apply only after ( 1 ) the Director has made a decision to waive a moratorium pursuant to section 101(a)(3)(A) of the Act,
( 2 ) the opportunity for a hearing required by section 103(d) of the Act has been provided, and
( 3 ) the Director has made a determination, in the case of State laws and regulations, to approve such State laws and regulations pursuant to section 109(a)(2) of the Act and subpart F of this part.
( b ) The provisions of this subpart, unless specifically stated, apply to all taking and/or importation of each species of marine mammal for which the moratorium has been waived other than takings for scientific research or public display, which are governed by § 18.31 of this part, or takings incidental to commercial fishing operations which are governed by § 18.24.
# EUR-Lex - 12006M018 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006M018

**Treaty on European Union (consolidated version) - Title V - Provisions on a common foreign and security policy - Article 18 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0017 - 0018 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0016 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0159 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 191 , 29/07/1992 P. 0060 *

Article 18

1. The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy.

2. The Presidency shall be responsible for the implementation of decisions taken under this title; in that capacity it shall in principle express the position of the Union in international organisations and international conferences.

3. The Presidency shall be assisted by the Secretary-General of the Council who shall exercise the function of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy.

4. The Commission shall be fully associated in the tasks referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. The Presidency shall be assisted in those tasks if need be by the next Member State to hold the Presidency.

5. The Council may, whenever it deems it necessary, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.

--------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 5, 2018

s1128 

# Order

Clerk December 5, 2018

156980

COUNTY OF INGHAM, COUNTY OF

JACKSON, and COUNTY OF CALHOUN,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 156980

COA: 334077

Ingham CC: 15

- 000432

- NZ

MICHIGAN COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

SELF

- INSURANCE POOL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration of the issue raised by the defendant but not addressed by that court during

its initial review of this case: Whether, even if the plaintiff counties are successors in

interest to their road commissions, the defendant Michigan County Road Commission

Self

- Insurance Pool nevertheless may, in accordance with its governing documents,

decline to issue to the counties refunds of surplus premiums from prior

- year

contributions. In addressing this question, the Court of Appeals shall consider, among

other things, the following documents: the Declaration of Trust, By

- Laws, Inter

- Local

Agreements, MCRCSIP Refund Overview , and the July 19, 1990 memorandum to the

Pool members. The court shall address whether these documents are binding on the

parties, and, if so, wha t effect they have on the plaintiffs’ entitlement to refunds.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E045 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E045

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolIdated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE III - Free movement of persons, services and capital - Chapter 2 - Right of establishment - Article 45 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0060 - 0060 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0053 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0196 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0022 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 45

The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, rule that the provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain activities.

--------------------------------------------------
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SANTIAGO VALLE-DOMINGUEZ,

a.k.a. Santiago Ramirez-Valle,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10541

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00534-JMR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Valle-Dominguez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 41-

month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Valle-Dominguez’s counsel

FILED

DEC 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10541

has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. The appellant has filed a motion

for appointment of new counsel, and no answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and ValleDominguez’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10153 Summary Calendar

MARILYN SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES; BARRY L. MACHA, District Attorney; MONTEREY CARE CENTER; SUSAN CRUME, Administrator; MACK PAINTER, Social Worker; RAYMOND PERRY, Police Officer; JAMES HODGES, Police Officer; DENVER MANOR; BARBARA LANE, Administrator; KIM DESHAE, Director of Nursing; REBECCA RUDDY; DEBBIE BEVINS; JANNA PERRY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:01-CV-96

-------------------- October 21, 2002 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marilyn Scott appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(1), (b)(6). Scott argues that the district court erred in dismissing her claimsNo. 02-10153 -2- because the defendants conspired to violate her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law and her Fifth Amendment rights to due process and the guarantee of personal liberty. We have reviewed de novo the district court’s judgment, the record, and the briefs and find no error in the district court’s judgment dismissing Scott’s claims against the defendants on these grounds. To the extent that Scott challenges the district court’s other bases for dismissal, she fails to provide any cogent factual or legal argument concerning whether the district court erred in determining that her claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, absolute immunity for witnesses, and prosecutorial immunity. Similarly, Scott failed to identify any error in the district court’s order denying her motions for default judgment and to strike the state court motion in limine. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even
pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. In their briefs, Monterey Care Center, Susan Crume, Mack Painter, Janna Perry, Denver Manor Nursing Home, Barbara Lane,No. 02-10153 -3- and Kim Deshae request that attorneys’ fees and costs be awarded to them. To the extent that these defendants seek attorneys’ fees and costs as a measure of damages because Scott’s appeal is frivolous, such a request must be made by a separately filed motion. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 38. As the requests for costs and fees are not properly made, the requests are DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
#### § 95.2741 MURS antenna height limit.

The highest point of any MURS station antenna must not be more than 18.3 meters (60 feet) above the ground or 6.10 meters (20 feet) above the highest point of the structure on which it is mounted. MURS station antennas must also meet the requirements in § 95.317 regarding menaces to air navigation. *See* 47 CFR 95.317 and consult part 17 of the FCC's Rules for more information (47 CFR part 17).
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.508 Annual specifications. ( a ) The Regional Administrator will determine any harvest guideline, quota, Annual Catch Limit (ACL) (defined at § 600.310(f)(2)) or Annual Catch Target (ACT) (defined at § 600.310(f)(2) of this chapter) in accordance with the framework process in the FMP.
( b ) Any harvest guideline, quota, ACL, or ACT, including any apportionment between the directed fishery and set-aside for incidental harvest, will be published in the Federal Register.
( c ) The announcement of each harvest guideline, quota, ACL or ACT will contain the following information if available or applicable: ( 1 ) The estimated biomass or MSY proxy on which the harvest guideline, quota, ACL or ACT was determined;
( 2 ) The portion, if appropriate, of the harvest guideline, quota, ACL or ACT set aside to allow for incidental harvests after closure of the directed fishery;
( 3 ) The estimated level of the incidental trip limit that will be allowed after the directed fishery is closed; and
( 4 ) The allocation, if appropriate, between Subarea A and Subarea B.
( d ) As necessary, harvest guidelines, quotas, OFLs (defined at § 600.310(f)(2)), ABCs (defined at § 600.310(f)(2) of this chapter), ACLs or ACTs, will receive public review according to the following procedure: ( 1 ) Meetings will be held by the Council's CPSMT and AP, where the estimated biomass and/or other biological or management benchmarks will be reviewed and public comments received. Each of these meetings will be announced in the Federal Register before the date of the meeting, if possible.
( 2 ) All materials relating to the estimated biomass and/or other biological or management benchmarks will be forwarded to the Council and its Scientific and Statistical Committee and will be available to the public from the Regional Administrator when available.
( 3 ) At a regular meeting of the Council, the Council will review the estimated biomass and/or other biological or management benchmarks and offer time for public comment. If the Council requests a revision, justification must be provided.
( 4 ) The Regional Administrator will review the Council's recommendations, justification, and public comments and base his or her final decision on the requirements of the FMP and other applicable law.
( e ) *Pacific mackerel.* Every 2 years the Regional Administrator will determine, and publish in the Federal Register, harvest specifications for 2 consecutive fishing seasons for Pacific mackerel.
[76 FR 70363, Nov. 14, 2011, as amended at 82 FR 35688, Aug. 1, 2017]
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41158

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ANTONIO LASTRA-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-256-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio

Antonio Lastra-Rivera has moved to withdraw and filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). LastraRivera has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from
No. 

-2-

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5276

To provide for the relief of hospitals treating rural populations under the

current calculation of the wage index modifier for the prospective payment under Medicare.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1994

Mr. REGULA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the relief of hospitals treating rural populations under the current calculation of the wage index

modifier for the prospective payment under Medicare.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 1886 of the Social Security Act of 1935 (42

4 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amended by adding the fol5 lowing new paragraph at the end thereof:

6 ‘‘(F) Not later than October 1, 1995, and

7 ending October 1, 1996, the Secretary shall up8 date the factor under this subparagraph for

9 each hospital in a rural area, or at the request
2

HR 5276 IH

1 of a hospital in an urban area whose wage

2 index is not greater than .06 of the wage index

3 for rural areas of such State and which dem4 onstrates its net inpatient care revenues from

5 rural areas during prior five fiscal years exceed

6 20 percent of its total of such net inpatient care

7 revenues during the same period, for such hos8 pital by an added amount of not less than .05,

9 nor greater than .10, in proportion to the ratio

10 of current total wages and wage-related costs of

11 the hospital to such costs at the time of their

12 last adjustment.’’.

Æ