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





Summary of Cash
Compensation For Non-Employee Directors  



Cash compensation for non-employee
members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Oshkosh Truck Corporation,
effective October 1, 2004, consists of payment of the following: (i) an annual
retainer of $35,000 for each non-employee director; (ii) an annual retainer of $5,000 for
each non-employee director who is a chair of a Board Committee; and (iii) a fee of $1,500
for each meeting of the Board or a Board Committee that a non-employee director attends
either in person or via telephone.
§ 167.15-35 Notice and plans required. ( a ) The master, owner, operator, or agent of the vessel shall notify the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, whenever the vessel is to be drydocked regardless of the reason for drydocking.
( b ) Each vessel, except barges, that holds a Load Line Certificate must have on board a plan showing the vessel's scantlings. This plan must be made available to the Coast Guard marine inspector whenever the vessel undergoes a drydock examination, internal structural examination, underwater survey, or whenever repairs are made to the vessel's hull.
( c ) Each barge that holds a Load Line Certificate must have a plan showing the barge's scantlings. The plan need not be maintained on board the barge but must be made available to the Coast Guard marine inspector whenever the barge undergoes a drydock examination, internal structural examination, underwater survey, or whenever repairs are made to the barge's hull.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39655, Oct. 23, 1987; USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21083, Apr. 29, 2002]
#### § 201.117 Inclusion in record.

No deposition or part thereof shall constitute a part of the record in any proceeding until received in evidence.
§ 205.3 Procedure. ( a ) You have 90 days from the date you receive the initial audit findings to file a written request for review of the audit findings with the appropriate Associate Administrator. Your written request must state the legal or factual bases for your disagreement. The appropriate Associate Administrator will issue a written determination.
( b ) You have 30 days following the Associate Administrator's final audit determination to submit your appeal in writing to the Administrator. Your written appeal must set forth the legal and factual bases for your appeal. The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, extend the time limitation in the case of extenuating circumstances.
( c ) We will notify you, in writing, if you must submit additional facts for our consideration of the appeal. We will notify you, in writing, once the Administrator has made a decision regarding your appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

David St. Ann, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Todd McLean, et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-11770 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION [58] 

 On January 3, 2018, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a 

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 58) recommending that the Court 

grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (Dkt. 38.) Magistrate Judge Patti recommends that the 

Court dismiss with prejudice plaintiff’s claims regarding a 

constitutional right to a particular security classification, dismiss 

without prejudice plaintiff’s claims against defendant Buczek for failure 

to exhaust his administrative remedies, and not dismiss plaintiff’s 
2 

claims for retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

(Dkt. 58 at 17-18.) 

 The parties were required to file specific written objections within 

14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No 

objections were filed. The court has nevertheless thoroughly reviewed 

the Report and Recommendation, and concurs in the reasoning and 

result. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 

 The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; 

 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 38) is GRANTED 

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 

 Plaintiff’s claims asserting a constitutional right to a particular 

security classification are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Buczek are DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 

 Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress are NOT DISMISSED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2018 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 25, 2018. 

s/Shawna Burns 

SHAWNA BURNS 

Case Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006027
<NAME> BACOU USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,276,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,098,984
<ALLOWANCES>                                   944,638
<INVENTORY>                                 23,449,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,752,685
<PP&E>                                      47,465,739
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,585,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,351,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,243,539
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,012
<OTHER-SE>                                 122,885,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               152,351,102
<SALES>                                    130,868,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           130,868,486
<CGS>                                       64,466,765
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,466,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             155,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,010,361
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,588,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,422,361
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,422,361
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GERALD LEE ROGERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-2193

 )

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 30, 2019.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge.

Kathleen A. Smith, Public Defender and 

Nicole Calderone, Assistant Public 

Defender, Ft. Myers, for Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Respondent. 

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Lee Rogers filed this petition for writ of certiorari to review an order 

adjudging him incompetent to proceed to trial and compelling him to undergo 

competency restoration training. The order was entered based on written reports by 
- 2 -

two experts "and others." The trial court denied Mr. Roger's motion for a competency 

hearing. A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper method to seek review of the failure 

to hold a competency hearing. See Carrion v. State, 859 So. 2d 563, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2003).

The State properly concedes that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.210(b) requires the trial court to conduct a competency hearing prior to issuing a 

written order determining whether a defendant is competent to proceed. See Simmons 

v. State, 271 So. 3d 997, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (remarking that the State correctly 

conceded that the trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing and enter a written 

order was fundamental error); see also Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 677 (Fla. 

2014) ("Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210–3.212 were enacted to set forth the 

required competency hearing procedures for determining whether a defendant is 

competent to proceed or has been restored to competency."); Williams v. State, 169 So. 

3d 221, 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ("Under the plain language of rule 3.210(b), the terms 

'shall' and 'immediately' reflect that a hearing is mandatory." (citing Dougherty, 149 So. 

3d at 677)).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order adjudging Mr. 

Rogers incompetent to proceed to trial.

Petition granted; order quashed.

MORRIS, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.23 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.24 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.25 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.26 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.27 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.28 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.29 Filed 05/27/15 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.30 Filed 05/27/15 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.31 Filed 05/27/15 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.32 Filed 05/27/15 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.33 Filed 05/27/15 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.34 Filed 05/27/15 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.35 Filed 05/27/15 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.36 Filed 05/27/15 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:15-cv-11520-MAG-APP ECF No. 8, PageID.37 Filed 05/27/15 Page 15 of 15
# C_2011113EN.01002201.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/22

---

Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-3/11)

2011/C 113/45

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 15 March 2010 and a claim for compensation for the damage suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 15 March 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 15 March 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority of the Commission;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission’s rejection of the complaint of 5 August 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission’s rejection of the complaint of 5 August 2010;

| — | in so far as is necessary, annul the note of 24 August 2010, written in Italian, which was not received by the applicant before 1 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as is necessary, annul the note of 24 August 2010, written in Italian, which was not received by the applicant before 1 October 2010;

| — | order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of each of the decisions in respect of which annulment is sought, in particular as a result of the cumulative effect of those decisions, by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of each of the decisions in respect of which annulment is sought, in particular as a result of the cumulative effect of those decisions, by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance sheets and  consolidated  statements of income on pages 22
and 23 of the Company's 2000 Annual Report to  Stockholders  and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0001007507
<NAME>           Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                       677
<INVENTORY>                                      4,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,577
<PP&E>                                          40,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,707
<BONDS>                                         54,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,460
<SALES>                                        441,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,074
<CGS>                                          374,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  374,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07



</TABLE>
#### § 96.64 Intervention.

Participation as parties in the hearing by persons other than the State and the Department is not permitted.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.056-4 Approval tests of prototype rescue boat. ( a ) *Drop test.* The rescue boat, fully equipped, shall be dropped, in a free fall, from a ten-foot height into water. No damage which would render the rescue boat unserviceable shall result from this drop.
( b ) *Stability and freeboard test.* The rescue boat shall have sufficient stability and freeboard so that the gunwale on the low side shall not be submerged with 350 pounds placed nine inches from the side in way of and about the level of the middle thwart.
( c ) *Rescue boarding test.* With one man in the rowing position, a second kneeling on the stern thwart facing aft, and a third man balanced on the transom, the minimum freeboard of the transom shall be five inches. The men should average 165 pounds each. This test simulates the rescue of a person over the transom by a two-man boat crew.
( d ) *Rowing test.* Three men, averaging 165 pounds each, shall be seated on the centerline of the boat, one on each thwart. One man, in the rowing position, using ordinary rowing technique, shall demonstrate the satisfactory course keeping and maneuvering characteristics of the boat in the ahead and astern directions.
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 293
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 294
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 295
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 296
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 297
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 298
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 299
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 300
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 301
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 302
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 303
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 304
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 305
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 306
2:15-cv-11169-PDB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 307
# C_2011194EN.01001601.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/16

---

Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

(Case T-219/11)

2011/C 194/25

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Court to:

| — | annul the resolution of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 February 2011 in Case R 0556/2010-2, in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes, paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture), instructional and teaching material (except apparatus), plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes), printers’ type, printing blocks’. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the resolution of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 February 2011 in Case R 0556/2010-2, in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes, paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture), instructional and teaching material (except apparatus), plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes), printers’ type, printing blocks’.

| — | refuse Community trade mark application No 5 676 721‘AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse Community trade mark application No 5 676 721‘AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: APLI-AGIPA S.A.S.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AGIPA’ (registration application No 5 676 721) for goods in Class 16.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AGIPA’ (No 2 216 879) and Spanish figurative mark that contains the word element ‘a — agipa’ (No 1 269 511), both for goods in Class 16.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
§ 193.15-40 Pressure relief. ( a ) Where necessary, relatively tight compartments such as refrigeration spaces, paint lockers, etc., shall be provided with suitable means for relieving excessive pressure accumulating within the compartment when the carbon dioxide is injected.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20304 Conference Calendar

__________________ TONY FITZGERALD COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.

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

USDC No. CA H 96-173 - - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tony Fitzgerald Cole, # 612907, appeals the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Cole argues that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction instructing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Medical Director to instruct the Bill Clements Unit to provide him immediately with medication prescribed by Dr. Balmas Lawrence. We have reviewed the record and Cole's brief and AFFIRM the district court'sNo. 96-20304 -2- denial for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Cole v. TDCJ , No. H-96-0173 (S.D. Tex.; Mar. 4, 1996). Cole's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).