alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
03/09/201 1 11:3 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 21001/00 1 02/11/201 1 10:0 0 FA l 4S5634350 5 PEOPL E 1300 2 

# SMifes f

i ^ A I RLI S E S m Direc t Dial : 435.634.353 0 DirecrFax : AiSMi.iSO S e-mail : teroertonfglafcyi'i'gst.co m 

# -••"••-^om/dms Febnwiyll,201 1 M A FEDERA L EXPRES S Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ATTN ; Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigk t Buildin g - Suite 2 W100 0 800 liidq>endenc e Avenu e SW Washington , P C 2059 1 Re : Cas e No . 2&09NM06012 4 an d2010NM06002 0 Dea r Sir/Madam: , SlcyWcst Airline s n

o longe r wishe s t o appea

l the projwse dpenalt

y i n th e above liste dcase s an dhereb y withdraw s it s Request^atAHeaiing . Sincerely , Tod dC . Emerso n Director - Government

andLega l Affair s TCE/j b cc : Jeffre y Harpe r

4 U Sout h Rive r Roa d S[ . GeoiTfe , Vui h8*79 0 435.634J0O O
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AROLDO PEREZ-PEREZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-070M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 16, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of

defendant as required or ensure the safety of the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) A detainer has been placed on defendant by the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement.

(2) Defendant is a citizen of Mexico, and it appears he has no ties to this community,

or to the Western District of Washington.

(3) Defendant has had prior deportations to Mexico.

Case 2:06-cr-00054-JLR Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant has stipulated to detention, due to the immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00054-JLR Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                             581
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (23,547)
<INVENTORY>                                    286,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               533,073
<PP&E>                                         289,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,900,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          894,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,016)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,900,271
<SALES>                                      2,014,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,014,469
<CGS>                                        1,838,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,838,857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               199,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,625)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,098)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,098)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

September 27, 1956

No. 60253.

protests 241822-K and 249565-K (New York).

#### Treville and Lansen Naeve Corp. *v.*United States,

*371Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Id accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of barrettes in chief value of cellulose acetate, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.73 M E Term Loan Note



		

			Exhibit 10.73

		


		

			 

		




		
			M&E TERM LOAN NOTE
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						$2,500,000

					
					
						December 29, 2017

				



		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Micron Products Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, hereby promises to pay Rockland Trust Company, a Massachusetts trust company (“Lender”), or order, at said Lender, the principal amount of TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,500,000), payable at the times set forth in the Credit Agreement (as defined below). This Note shall bear interest from the date hereof on the unpaid balance from time to time outstanding at the rate or rates and payable at the times specified in the Credit Agreement.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			This Note is being executed and delivered pursuant to that certain Credit and Security Agreement of even date between Lender and the undersigned (as amended, modified, supplemented or restated from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			The undersigned agrees to pay upon demand reasonable costs of collection incurred by the holder of this Note, including reasonable fees of attorneys.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			[Signature page follows]
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			 
		


		

		

		 


		

			 

		




 


		

			 

		




		No delay or omission on the part of the holder in exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such right or of any other right of such holder, nor shall any delay, omission or waiver on any one occasion be deemed a bar to or waiver of the same or any other right on any future occasion. The undersigned regardless of the time, order or place of signing waives presentment, demand, protest and notices of every kind and assent to any one or more indulgences, to any substitutions, exchanges or releases of collateral if at any time there be available to the holder collateral for this Note, and to the additions or releases of any other parties or persons primarily or secondarily liable.
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						MICRON PRODUCTS INC.

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Witness:

					
					
						/s/ Derek T Welch

					
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ SALVATORE EMMA, JR.

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Name: SALVATORE EMMA, JR.

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Title: PRESIDENT & CEO

				



		
			﻿
		

		 


		

			Signature Page to M&E Term Loan Note
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1





PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION 
2018 FISCAL YEAR COMPENSATION PROGRAM  
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


		
	A.
	Amounts of 2018 Fiscal Year Compensation


		
	•
	Annual Board Retainer (cash):    $50,000


		
	•
	Additional Annual Non-Executive  
Chairman Retainer (cash):    $50,000        


		
	•
	Committee fees (cash):


Audit Committee:    $25,000 for Chair 
    $20,000 for Members
Nominating and Corporate 
Governance Committee:    $12,500 for Chair 
    $10,000 for Members
Compensation Committee:    $25,000 for Chair 
    $15,000 for Members
Equity Component:
		
	•
	$200,000 to be delivered in one installment (as set forth below under “Timing”), consisting of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”).  


		
	•
	The number of DSUs to be issued will be determined by dividing $200,000 by the fair market value of Company common stock on the date of issuance.  The DSUs will vest in a single installment on the date of the 2019 Annual Meeting, subject to continued service on the Board through such date, with full acceleration upon a change in control. 


		
	•
	DSUs will be settled upon a Director’s separation from service from the Board of Directors or change in control, if earlier, and not upon vesting.


Timing
		
	•
	Annual fiscal year cash compensation will be paid in one installment at the Compensation Committee meeting in June or, promptly following the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting, whichever is earlier, or such other date as determined by the Compensation Committee.  Amounts paid will be pro-rated for partial year service, with a fractional month of service rounded to a whole month.  A Director who joins the Board other than on the first day of the fiscal year will be paid a pro-rated amount of the annual fiscal year compensation.  




1




The same proration rule will also apply to any partial year service on any committee.
B.    Initial Director Appointment Grant
Each newly elected Director shall receive an Initial Director Appointment Grant of $300,000 of Deferred Stock Units (“DSUs”).  The precise number of DSUs to be issued to the newly elected Director will be determined by dividing $300,000 by the fair market value of Company common stock on the date of issuance.
DSUs will vest over a 60-month period, beginning on the first day of the month following the month the Director joins the Board, with full acceleration upon a change in control.  DSUs will be settled upon a Director’s separation from service from the Board of Directors or change in control, if earlier, and not upon vesting.
C.    Stock Retention Guidelines
All non-employee Directors must hold a number of shares of the Corporation’s common stock having a fair market value equal to at least five times the Annual Cash Retainer, which for purposes of this requirement shall include vested DSUs.  Directors have five years to attain this guideline from the date of election to the Board. 
D.    Miscellaneous
Employee Directors shall not be entitled to participate in the 2018 Director Compensation Plan.


2
Before the Third Division

April 20, 1965

No. 69264.

#### Robert M. Waggaman *v.*United States,

protest 63/8272.

Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a commission denied. The following memorandum accompanied the order denying motion for a commission :

Donlon, Judge:

Rule 21 requires, in support of a motion that a commission issue to take testimony by deposition, that the moving party show, *inter alia,*the *412facts which that party espeets to prove by the testimony of a named witness or witnesses.

The sole fact which plaintiff states he expects to prove by answers of Mr. W. S. Bell to interrogatories in Scotland, would appear to be what the date is when ships figureheads, subject of this litigation, were produced. This we may deduce from a statement in the affidavit of E. Thomas Honey, Esq., in support of the motion for a commission. But we are not told what the *fact*is as to date, which plaintiff expects to prove by Mr. Bell’s answers to interrogatories. If the date is subsequent to 1830, obviously Mr. Bell’s testimony is valueless.

Mr. Honey also does not say what facts he expects to prove in support of Mr. Bell’s asserted qualification to give expert testimony as to artistic antiquities; or as to what facts, other than the unspecified date, he expects to prove in support of the claim that these figureheads are *loth*artistic and antiquities.

The court should not issue its commission to take testimony abroad, involving considerable delay in the disposition of suits, without the disclosure by the moving party which rule 21 requires. Moreover, where (as here) the fact expected to be proved by such testimony does not suffice to support the protest claim, good judicial administration indicates the need to know how the party seeking the deposition expects to complete its case.

This importation was made in June 1960, nearly 5 years ago. It seems clear that plaintiff should now move with dispatch to prosecute its suit, whatever may have been the excuses for prior delay.

We deem it not necessary, in view of our denial of plaintiff’s motion, to consider here the cross-motion of defendant for leave to postpone filing of its cross-interrogatories.

Denial of plaintiff’s motion for a commission is without prejudice to renewal thereof on a proper showing, under rule 21, of the facts to be proved.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-061 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 2, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00775

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D .P.B AND D.Z.B., CHI LDREN
On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 05

- 12682


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Brown, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Appellant has filed a motion stating she has elected to dismiss the app eal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

150775F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.B AND D.Z.B., CHILDREN

No. 05

- 15

- 00775

- CV On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 05

- 12682. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers. Justices Brown and Schenck participating.

In ac cordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee Derrick Battie recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Yanika M. Daniels.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of November, 2015.
EXHIBIT 10.1
                              ------------

     The Board of Directors in a Special Meeting dated February 8, 1999,
appointed Larry T. Clemons as President of the Company.  The Company agreed
to a compensation arrangement, which has not been set forth in a formal
executive employment agreement as of the date of this report, whereby Mr.
Clemons is to receive an initial annual salary in the amount of $75,000 and
1,000,000 shares of restricted common stock of the Company, beginning
February 8, 1999.  The annual salary is subject to review on a quarterly
basis, and, based on each $.20 increase in the value of the stock of the
Company (with the base beginning value of the common stock as of February 8,
1999 of $.35), Mr. Clemons is eligible for increases of $10,000. Additionally,
Mr. Clemons has an option to purchase 1,000,000 shares of restricted common
stock at the end of his first year of employment at a price per share of $.16.
From: jtseiter@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Johnk Seiter

Edwardsburg, MI 49112
No. 60250.

petition 7196-R (Chicago).

#### Consumer’s Tire & Supply Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It appeared that, prior to entry, the president of the petitioning company sought information in Canada and in this country as to the correct value to be used for entry purposes and, as the result of his inquiries, was satisfied that the invoiced prices represented such value. An appeal for re-appraisement was filed after higher values were returned by the appraiser, but was abandoned when the exporter failed to cooperate in the matter of securing proof to support the appeal. On the record presented, it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was, therefore, granted.
From: laviniah@mcloudteleco.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:06:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gary Hill

Newalla, OK 74857