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

 

THE RMR GROUP INC.

 

Summary of Director Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Directors of The RMR Group Inc. (the “Company”) for services as Directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:

 

·                  Each Independent Director receives an annual fee of $60,000 for services as a Director, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,250 fees are paid if a Board meeting and one or more Board committee meetings, or two or more Board committee meetings, are held on the same date. The annual fee for any new Independent Director is prorated for the initial year.

 

·                  Each Independent Director who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $15,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new Independent Director is prorated for the initial year.

 

·                  Each Director receives a grant of 2,500 of the Company’s shares of Class A common stock on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).

 

·                  All Directors are generally reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
From: 3hsmom@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:52:54 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,

Sarah Allen

Goose Creek, SC 29445
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER VACATING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KAMKAIDO CRAB, 

Plaintiff,

v.

NEREIDA INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0166RSL

ORDER VACATING 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Leave to

Take Discovery on January 31, 2006 seeking an order allowing it to obtain discovery from

entities in this judicial district to aid in a proceeding in Russia. The Court granted plaintiff’s

subsequent motion to take discovery in April 2006. Subsequently, plaintiff did not file any

documents in this case. Because the only relief requested in this action was an order permitting

discovery and the Court granted that motion, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this

case should not be closed. 

On January 23, 2007, plaintiff responded and requested that the case remain open to

allow it additional time to complete discovery. Accordingly, the Court’s Order to Show Cause 

Case 2:06-cv-00166-RSL Document 21 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER VACATING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2

(Dkt. #18) is VACATED. Plaintiff must notify the Court within ten days after it has completed

its discovery efforts so that the Court can close this case.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00166-RSL Document 21 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 57449.

#### Jean Papantonopoulos *v.*United States,

protest 198629-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
| **Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management (Details 3) (USD $)In Billions, unless otherwise specified** | Mar. 31, 2015                         | Dec. 31, 2014                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| **Derivative**                                                                                                      |                                  |                                  |
| Derivative instruments, notional amount                                                                             | $ 4.75invest_DerivativeNotionalAmount | $ 5.25invest_DerivativeNotionalAmount |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate notional amount specified by the derivative(s). Expressed as an absolute value.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Article 12 -Section 13 -Sentence Column B
+ Details**Name:**invest_DerivativeNotionalAmount**Namespace Prefix:**invest_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DerivativeLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Case No. 6,618.

#### HINES et ux. v. CRAIG.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 340.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1806.

Pleading — Plene Administravit.

Outstanding judgments cannot be given in ■evidence, on plene administravit, but must be specially pleaded.

[This was an action *at*law by Hines and wife against Craig, administrator of Mitchell.)

Assumpsit, non assumpsit, limitations, and plene administravit.

E. J. Lee, for defendant,

showed prior judgments outstanding.

Mr. Swann, for plaintiff,

objected that, unless the defendant shows actual payment of those judgments, they cannot be given in evidence under a general plea of plene ad-ministravit, but must be pleaded specially.

And THE COURT so decided.
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1962

No. 66540.

#### B. Westergaard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/4037, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

HONORABLE ROBERT B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ARDIS A. MAUNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY

COMPANY; GARY A. DOWNING; and

RICHARD E. CARTER,

Defendants.

No.: C06-05083 RBL

ORDER GRANTING AGREED THIRD

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

IDENTIFY EXPERTS UNDER FED. R.

CIV. P. 26(a)(2) 

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

Plaintiff and Defendants, by counsel, having moved the Court for a third time to

extend the deadline to disclose expert testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by

fourteen days, to and including, February 1, 2007, and the Court, being duly advised in

the premises, hereby GRANTS said Motion. 

Case 3:06-cv-05083-RBL Document 29 Filed 01/20/07 Page 1 of 2
2

It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to disclose expert testimony under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) is extended to and including February 1, 2007. So ordered. 

Date: January 20, 2007.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05083-RBL Document 29 Filed 01/20/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 61568.

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 313676-K and 321195-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 61028.

protests 79227-K, etc. (New York).

#### Leo Werner and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 736 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 16, 2007.
Whereas the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and its 
        successor agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        (NASA), developed and sustained the world's preeminent aeronautics 
        research program after NACA's formation in 1915;
Whereas the speed of sound once presented a seemingly impenetrable and dangerous 
        barrier to piloted flight;
Whereas NACA, the U.S. Air Force, and Bell Aircraft undertook a joint project to 
        develop and test the X-1 aircraft and achieve piloted supersonic flight;
Whereas on the morning of October 14, 1947, an X-1 aircraft piloted by Captain 
        Charles ``Chuck'' Yeager was dropped from a B-29 carrier aircraft and 
        ``broke the sound barrier'' and achieved supersonic flight for the first 
        time in history;
Whereas this flight provided proof of the feasibility of piloted supersonic 
        flight, and delivered the data required to improve high speed 
        performance and develop technologies for advanced supersonic aircraft; 
        and
Whereas subsequent X-plane aeronautics research projects have built on the 
        historic accomplishments of the X-1 aircraft and achieved advances in a 
        wide range of aeronautics research areas: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and honors the contributions of the scientists and 
        engineers of NACA and its partners who pioneered the technologies to 
        enable supersonic flight;
            (2) recognizes and honors the bravery of Charles Yeager, and the 
        bravery of the many other test pilots who, sometimes at the cost of 
        their lives, enabled the aeronautics developments that made that first 
        supersonic flight possible; and
            (3) recognizes the importance of strong and robust aeronautics 
        research activities to the well being of America.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Simona Kragh

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:26:50 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Simona Kragh
Danville, Virginia
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

THOMAS C. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5629JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 28TH day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05629-FDB Document 2 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Michael W. KENNEDY and Shirley Kennedy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTH OAKS, a Minnesota Statutory City, North Oaks Homeowners Association, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation, Seth Colton, Richard Lange, William Frey, Shirley Ray and Thomas Watson, individually and as Members of the North Oaks City Council, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2459MN.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.

Filed July 17, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and KORNMANN,1 District Judge.

1

. The Hon. Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The principal issue in this appeal, as presented by appellant, is the validity of Ordinance 59 of the City of North Oaks, Minnesota, under both state and federal law. The District Court2 granted sum*441mary judgment *for the*defendants without reaching the merits.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons given in the well-reasoned opinions of the District Court. In particular, the plaintiffs have not shown by sufficient evidence that they have ever suffered an injury in fact by reason of the challenged Ordinance. The summary-judgment record establishes that the City has never applied the ordinance, nor has it threatened to apply it to the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs have never attempted to develop their property.

We hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the justiciability of the plaintiffs’ claims. The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

2

. The Hon. Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
** **

**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**  **

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

**  **

I, Joseph A. Venezia,do hereby certify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certify on behalfof World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2021-Ato Closed-End Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021 (the “Exchange Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL HoldingCorp., as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)                A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K andcovered by the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Exchange Note ServicingSupplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been made under my supervision.

 

(ii)               To the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the ExchangeNote Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I havehereunto set my hand as of March 25, 2022.
H. Res. 605 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 24, 2007. 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the 

supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or 

daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of all whose lives are sacrificed in 

war; 

Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers assist veterans of 

the Armed Forces and their dependents in the presentation of claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and aid members of the Armed Forces who served and 

died or were wounded or incapacitated during hostilities; 

Whereas the services rendered to the United States by the 

mothers of America have strengthened and inspired 

Americans throughout the history of the United States; 

Whereas Americans honor themselves and the mothers of 

America when they revere and emphasize the role of the 

home and the family as the true foundations of the 

United States; 

Whereas by doing so much for the home, the American mother is a source of moral and spiritual guidance for the 

people of the United States and thus acts as a positive 

force to promote good government and peace among all 

mankind; and 
2 

•HRES 605 EH 

Whereas September 30, 2007, is being recognized as Gold 

Star Mothers Day: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of Gold Star 

Mothers Day; and 

(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 

calling upon the people of the United States to observe 

such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.