alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.22Summary of Director Compensation     Directors who are employees of the Company receive no additional compensation for theirservices as directors. Each non-employee director receives: **•** an annual retainer in the amount described below;  **•** a meeting fee of $2,000 for each Board or committee meeting attended in person and$1,000 for each telephonic meeting (but only one fee in the event that more than onesuch meeting is held on a single day);  **•** an initial grant of an option to purchase 12,000 shares of common stock on the dateof such director’s appointment to the Board of Directors;  **•** an annual grant of an option to purchase 8,000 shares of common stock; and  **•** reimbursement for necessary travel expenses incurred in attending such meetings.     Additionally, the Board member serving as Chairman of the Audit Committee and the Board memberserving as Chairman of the Compliance Committee receive an additional $2,000 per month. The Boardmember serving as Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Boardmember serving as Chairman of the Compensation Committee receive an additional $1,000 per month.     In 2006, each non-employee director received an annual retainer of $12,000. On November 2,2006, the Board of Directors increased the annual cash retainer to be paid to each non-employeedirector in 2007 and for subsequent years to $40,000.
§ 505.2 Definitions. ( a ) *Administrative offset,* as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(1), means withholding money payable by the United States Government to, or held by the Government for, a person to satisfy a debt the person owes the Government.
( b ) *Person* includes a natural person or persons, profit or non-profit corporation, partnership, association, trust, estate, consortium, or other entity which is capable of owing a debt to the United States Government except that agencies of the United States, or of any State or local government shall be excluded.
§ 67.253 Requirements for notices of claim of lien. A notice of claim of lien must: ( a ) Be signed by or on behalf of each claimant; and
( b ) Recite the following: ( 1 ) The name and address of each claimant;
( 2 ) The nature of the lien claimed;
( 3 ) The date on which the lien was established; and
( 4 ) The amount of the lien claimed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AVIALL,
INC.'S THIRD QUARTER 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH THIRD QUARTER 1998 FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,939
<INVENTORY>                                     88,416
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,558
<PP&E>                                          39,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,607
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,927
<SALES>                                        305,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               305,105
<CGS>                                          228,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                       693
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,083
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,171
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22
        

</TABLE>
#### § 70.01-7 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[54 FR 50380, Dec. 6, 1989]
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Morgan, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Morgan*(1998), 84.Ohio St.3d 47.]

(No. 98-1507

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*Jim Slagle,*Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

The cause is remanded to the trial court to conduct a sexual predator classification hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(C)(2).

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1240 CA 13-00822**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

DENISE F. MCKNIGHT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GARY COPPOLA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

THE LAW OFFICES OF JON LOUIS WILSON, LOCKPORT (JON LOUIS WILSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICES OF DESTIN SANTACROSE, BUFFALO (DESTIN SANTACROSE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered February 20, 2013 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down the basement stairway at defendant’s residence. The accident occurred when plaintiff walked down an unlit hallway, intending to open the door to the first floor bathroom, and instead opened the door to the basement. Plaintiff moved her hand along the wall inside the basement doorway in search of a light switch, took a step and fell down the stairs. She alleges that defendant was negligent in, inter alia, failing to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition and failing to warn her of the danger posed by the basement door, which was next to the bathroom door and identical in appearance to it.
Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordinarily the issue whether a danger is open and obvious is for the trier of fact ( see Tagle v Jakob , 97 NY2d 165, 169; Sniatecki v Violet Realty, Inc. , 98 AD3d 1316, 1319), and defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether the danger posed by the proximity and appearance of the bathroom and basement doors was open and obvious ( cf. Koval v Markley , 93 AD3d 1171, 1171-1172; see generally Quinlan v Cecchini , 41 NY2d 686, 690; Christianson v Breen , 288 NY 435, 437-438; Pollack v Klein , 39 AD3d 730, 730-731). In addition, defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he discharged his “ ‘broader duty’ ” to maintain**-2- 1240 CA 13-00822** 
the property in a reasonably safe condition ( Juoniene v H.R.H. Constr. Corp. , 6 AD3d 199, 201; see generally Cohen v Shopwell, Inc. , 309 AD2d 560, 561-562), or that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of her fall ( see Sniatecki , 98 AD3d at 1319; Mooney v Petro, Inc. , 51 AD3d 746, 747).

Entered: January 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
ex10.1

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 	 	
	 $95,000 US
	 June 18, 2013


 

 FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Crown Alliance Capital Limited, a Nevada corporation, (“Maker”) hereby promises to pay to the order of Lorraine Fusco (“Holder”) the sum of US NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($35,000).  This Note shall bear interest at the rate of Fourteen percent (14%) per annum.  All principal and interest due hereunder shall be payable on or before July 18, 2013. 
 

 Maker hereby waives presentment, dishonor, notice of dishonor and protest.  All parties hereto consent to, and Holder is expressly authorized to make, without notice, any and all renewals, extensions, modifications, or waivers of the time for or the terms of payment of any sum or sums due hereunder, or under any documents or instruments relating to or securing this Note, or of the performance of any covenants, conditions or agreements hereof or thereof or the taking or release of collateral securing this Note.  Any such action by Holder shall not discharge the liability of any party to this Note.
 

 This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada without regard to conflict of law principles.  Maker shall also pay Holder any and all costs of collection incurred in connection with this Note, including court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
 

 Crown Alliance Capital Limited
 

 By:/s/ Lorraine Fusco
       Lorraine Fusco, President
§ 95.50-20 Semi-portable fire extinguishers. ( a ) The frame or support of each semi-portable fire extinguisher required by Table 95.50-10(a) must be welded or otherwise permanently attached to a bulkhead or deck.
( b ) If an approved semi-portable fire extinguisher has wheels and is not required by Table 95.50-10(a), it must be securely stowed when not in use to prevent it from rolling out of control under heavy sea conditions.
( c ) Semi-portable extinguishers must be fitted with suitable hoses and nozzles, or other practicable means, so that all areas of the space can be protected.
[CGD 77-039, 44 FR 34133, June 14, 1979, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48265, July 22, 2016]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending January 3, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, March 15, 1995 (45), Para 45.23 Recorded Vote]
[Page 390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.45.23  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment, as modified, submitted by Mr. 
ROGERS:

       Page 8, line 24, strike ``$19,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$16,500,000''.
       Page 9, line 11, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$23,000,000''.

It was decided in the

Yeas

419

affirmative

Nays

8
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                             10320
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     371522
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        9377
<INVENTORY>                                                        61290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  577404
<PP&E>                                                           2929394
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    396416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   4533544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             414556
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                           88924
<OTHER-SE>                                                       1022414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     4533544
<SALES>                                                          1270089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 1270089
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    1015936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                125932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   130325
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       54614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                75711
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       75711
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.76




</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

**data.html**
EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-90966) pertaining to the NuMED Home Health Care, Inc. Outside
Director and Advisory Board Member Stock Option Plan, the NuMED Home Health
Care, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock Option Plan and the NuMED Home Health Care, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and (Form S-8 No. 33-96570) pertaining to the NuMED
Home Health Care, Inc. Retirement Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan of our report dated
June 29, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NuMED
Home Health Care, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 1998 included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended March 31, 1999.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Cleveland, Ohio
June 28, 1999
§ 1018.6 Omissions not a defense. ( a ) The failure of the Board to include in this part any provision of the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR parts 900 through 904, does not prevent the Board from applying these provisions.
( b ) A debtor may not use the failure of the Board to comply with any provision of this part or the Federal Claims Collection Standards as a defense to the debt.
[58 FR 7749, Feb. 9, 1993, as amended at 81 FR 8851, Feb. 23, 2016]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

TIMOTHY BOULDING,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE No. 15-12706-DT

DR. BHAMINI SUDHIR, CORIZON HEALTH

CARE, DR. STEVEN BERGMAN AND

ALFRED JONES, 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation Dismissing Defendants Dr. Bhamini, Corizon Health Care and Dr. Steven

Bergman on September 29, 2016 and the Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation

Dismissing Defendant Alfred Jones entered this date,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants

and against Plaintiff Timothy Boulding.

Dated at Port Huron, Michigan, this 14th day of November, 2016.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF COURT

BY: s/Lisa Wagner

Lisa Wagner Case Manager to 

Judge Robert H. Cleland

. 

2:15-cv-12706-RHC-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 11/14/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 379
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1366

DARRYL E. WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

TOWN OF ZEBULON; TOWN OF ZEBULON POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT 

MATHENY; TIM HAYWORTH; MICHAEL MCGLOTHLIN; SCOTT FINCH, 

 Defendants - Appellees, 

 and 

JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (4:06-cv-00218-BO) 

Submitted: January 27, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009 

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Angela Newell Gray, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Victoria A. Street, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, 

North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

 Darryl E. Wright appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment and dismissing his claims under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 

1983 (2000), and North Carolina state law. This court reviews a 

district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, 

drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the 

non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. 

2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment 

is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure 

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Wright v. Town of Zebulon, No. 4:06-cv-00218-BO 

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2008). 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
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending August 27, 2011

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 42.09-35 Additional survey requirements for wood-hull vessels. ( a ) In addition to the requirements in § 42.09-25, the surveyor of the assigning authority shall examine the items, etc., listed in this section, to determine if in satisfactory condition and meeting the applicable requirements in this subchapter.
( b ) When the vessel is in drydock or hauled out, the keel, stem, stern frame or sternpost, outside planking, and caulking shall be examined.
( c ) The fasteners shall be examined. Bolts, screws, or equivalent fastenings, as deemed necessary by the surveyor, must be backed out, or otherwise dealt with, to ensure soundness.
( d ) The holds, 'tween decks, peaks, bilges, machinery spaces, and bunkers shall be examined.
( e ) The entire structure, including decks, shall be examined. If considered necessary by the surveyor, borings shall be made, or other means may be used, to ascertain the condition of the materials. Should these measures disclose sufficient cause, further examination to satisfy the surveyor as to the true condition shall be made and check locations listed. This list shall be submitted to the assigning and issuing authority for record purposes, and for use in subsequent surveys.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10057, July 12, 1968]