alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0374 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. SUSAN JOANNE PAJNICH,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 17 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 12 2023

10/12/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0374
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10062 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE GUADALUPE NAVA

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 124

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Nava

- Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nava

- Garcia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10062 Document: 00512991528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015No. 14

- 10062
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-10062 Document: 00512991528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
AFS

- 12

- 532

- E December 7, 2012

Exemption No. 10668 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0967

Mr. Grant Pitzer HoundDogAir, LLC

P.O. Box 6212 San Antonio, TX 782 09

Dear Mr. Pitzer :

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 3, 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administr ation (FAA)

on behalf of HoundDogAir, LLC (HDA ) for an exemption from § 91.319(a)(1) and (2) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow HDA to
operate a twin

- engine, two

- place, experimental amateur

- built category air craft, the Air Cam (Air Cam) for compensation or hire . The Air Cam will be used to carry a methane gas leak detector over natural gas pipelines in sparsely populated areas of the United States for compensation or hire while utilizing one pilot, and one se nsor operator when required

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be de trimental to HDA

.

The FAA has issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 8189 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that the use of experimental aircraft for com mercial use is not, nor has it been considered to provide an “equivalent level of safety.” The FAA also found that the petitioner had not shown a grant of exemption would be in the public interest or a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the re gulation would be maintained.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No

. 8189 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for grant ing the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 8189 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby deny HoundDogAir, LLC an exemption from

14 CFR § 91.319(a) (1) and (2)

.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed January 28, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00092-CV

IN RE LINDA J. HART, Relator

Original Proceeding in the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

Dallas County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

By letter dated January 22, 2015, relator notified this Court of her complaints concerning 

various actions by the Dallas County District Clerk’s office.

1

 She requested that the deputy 

clerks of whom she complains be recused. We treat the letter as a petition for writ of mandamus.

Texas courts of appeals have been granted limited original jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T 

CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). We are granted mandamus jurisdiction over a district clerk 

only when the actions of the district clerk interfere with the exercise of this Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction. In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). 

Relator’s petition does not allege any action that constitutes interference with this Court’s 

appellate jurisdiction. 

 1 Relator names the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department as a party to her petition but her petition does not appear to raise any complaints 

regarding the actions of the Sheriff’s Department. In any event, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a petition for writ of mandamus against the 

Dallas County Sheriff or her staff. Silva v. Klevenhagen, 833 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (court of 

appeals lacked jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus to sheriff because he was not judge of district or county court and writ was not necessary to 

enforce jurisdiction of court of appeals).
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

150092F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
# C_2016211EN.01003401.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck v Pensionsmyndigheten

(Case C-189/16)

(2016/C 211/44)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Boguslawa Zaniewicz-Dybeck

Defendant: Pensionsmyndigheten

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions in Article 47(1)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) mean that the insurance periods completed in another Member State, in the calculation of the Swedish guaranteed pension, can be given a pensionable value which corresponds to the average value of the Swedish periods where the competent authority undertakes a pro-rata calculation under Article 46(2) of that regulation?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, may the competent institution, in its calculation of the entitlement to a guaranteed pension take account of pension income which an insured person receives in another Member State without that running counter to the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

---
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS:

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Including: Regulatory Impact Analysis

July 2001

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Office of Building Research and Standards Washington, DC 20585This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy by staff members of Arthur D. Little, Inc. and Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Energy Analysis Department
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LORAN and LOUISE B. SIEGEL, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4178

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04178-JG Document 9 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
hstm-ex105_11.htm



EXHIBIT 10.5

HealthStream, Inc. (the Company)

Summary of Director and Executive Officer Compensation

I. Director Compensation. Directors who are employees of the Company do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors of the Company. For fiscal year 2020, each director received an annual retainer of $5,000, except for the Audit Committee Chair and Nominating and Corporate Governance Chair, who received an additional annual retainer of $7,500, and the Compensation Committee Chair, who received an additional annual retainer of $2,000. Non-employee directors also received a $20,000 flat-fee, except for members of the Audit Committee who received $22,500, for board and committee meeting attendance and participation in lieu of per meeting fees.

In addition to the cash compensation set forth above, each non-employee director is eligible to receive a nondiscretionary annual grant of restricted share units. The restricted share units are granted annually and vest ratably over a three-year period.

Director compensation for 2021 has not yet been determined by the Compensation Committee.

II. Executive Officer Compensation. The following table sets forth the current base salaries and fiscal 2020 performance bonuses to be provided to our executive officers upon review and approval by the Compensation Committee, including the individuals who the Company expects to be its Named Executive Officers for 2021.

 


						
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Executive Officer
	
  
	
Current Base Salary
	
  
	
Fiscal 2020 Bonus Amount1
	
  

	
Robert A. Frist, Jr.
	
  
	
$345,050
	
  
	
$92,473
	
  

	
J. Edward Pearson
	
  
	
$339,900
	
  
	
$91,093
	
 

	
Michael Sousa
	
  
	
$339,900
	
  
	
$18,355
	
  

	
Scott A. Roberts
	
  
	
$250,000
	
  
	
$50,000
	
  

	
Jeffrey D. Cunningham
	
  
	
$292,520
	
  
	
$58,504
	
  

	
Michael M. Collier
	
  
	
$272,950
	
  
	
$54,590
	
  

	
Trisha L. Coady
	
 
	
$253,450
	
 
	
$50,690
	
 

	
M. Scott McQuigg
	
 
	
$250,000
	
 
	
$50,000
	
 

	
Kevin O’Hara
	
 
	
$285,000
	
 
	
$-2
	
 

	
Scott Fenstermacher
	
 
	
$200,000
	
 
	
$-3
	
 




1 Fiscal 2020 bonus amounts remain subject to review and approval by the Compensation Committee.

2 Kevin O’Hara’s date of hire with the Company was January 1, 2021.

3 Scott Fenstermacher was promoted to Senior Vice President in January 2021.

Base salary adjustments for 2021, bonus targets for 2021 cash bonuses, and 2021 equity grants for executive officers have not yet been determined by the Compensation Committee.

III. Additional Information. The foregoing information is summary in nature. Additional information regarding Director and Named Executive Officer compensation will be contained in the Company’s 2021 Proxy Statement.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    ELECTRO-OPTICAL SCIENCES, INC.
    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
                      *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
    provided to Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and will be retained
    by Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and furnished to the
    Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
    This written statement accompanies the
    Form 10-Q
    to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
    Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference
    into any filing of Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. under the
    Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
    irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
    such filing.
# C_2016200EN.01000702.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

(Case C-143/16)

(2016/C 200/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Appellant:

Respondent and cross-appellant: Antonino Bordonaro

Respondent and cross-appellant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the rule of national law set out in Article 34 of Legislative Decree No 276 of 2003, according to which an on-call employment contract may, in any event, be concluded in respect of services provided by persons under 25 years of age, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age referred to in Directive 2000/78 (1) and Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

1

---
No. 49085.

#### Protests 34997-K, etc., of Moscahlades Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269, the records in which were incorporated herein. The protests were sustained to this extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD and HELEN FISHER :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4293

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04293-LDD Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
SSD IPAC

IPAC Operational Metrics for December 2021

‘Volume by Transaction Type
Dollar ‘% of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _% of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 15,095 093,354,003| 99.76%) 24,076] 22.03%
Buy/Sell 34,845, 863,691] 0.19% 89,174] 77.89%
Benefits [RITS) 8.210,535,833| 0.05% 396 0.35%
[check Aftermath (TRACS) 267,705,544] 0.00% 243] 0.72%
[Zero Dollar
[Grand Total - December 2021
[Grand Total - November 2021
854098.26.01 10/18/02 9:28 AM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHIL WALSH and :

PATRICIA ANN WALSH : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4183

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04183-LDD Document 10 Filed 10/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
From: Reyes Romero

To: Monica Soucier

Subject: FW: Questions regarding 400.3

Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:21:56 AM

Please add to the list, thanks,

From: Rick Wolery [mailto:rickw@eltorocattle.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:12 AM

To: Reyes Romero

Subject: Questions regarding 400.3

Good Morning:

We have some questions that we need answers to and trust you to be the source with the answers:

1. Does Rule 400.3 apply to all Ag Engines, No Ag Engines or only Certain Engines?

 (stationary, portable self propelled?

2. Is Ag required to register all engines larger than 49 HP with the district even if they are

 AG Exempt?

3. Are Tier 0 Engines illegal for Ag use?

4. At what stage do the different Tier’s phase out for replacement?

5. Is there any financial help for replacements?

Thanks for your reply,

Rick Wolery    

     

 

 96 East Fawcett Rd.

 Heber, CA 92249

 760-427-7922 Cell

 760-352-6312 Office

 760-352-1063 Fax

 rickw@eltorocattle.com – Please Note New Address

Beef-It's What for Dinner

COMMENT TWO (E-MAIL)
No. 67786.

#### Maher & Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/11264-16278 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
July 8, 2011 

Dean T. Peterson 

Director of A&P School 

School of Missionary Aviation Technology 

468 East Sprague Road d-175 

Ionia, MI 48846 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request. It explains why we 

can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 16, 2011, exemption request on behalf of School of Missionary 

Aviation Technology into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0549), but we are unable to 

process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the 

requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dennis R. Pratte for 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
(Reap. Dec. 10305)

Entry No. 923586, etc.

#### Ford Motor Company *v.*United States

(Decided July 30, 1962)

*James E. O’Boyle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court;

> *361That the merchandise and the issues in the .appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in the case of *Ford Motor Company*v. *United States,*decided in Reap. Dec. 9683 and affirmed in A.R.D. 124, and that the record in said case may he incorporated herein.

> That at the time of exportation of the involved automobiles, neither such nor similar automobiles were being freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for export to the United States, nor freely offered for sale in the United States pursuant to Sec. 402 (a) (e) (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that the cost of production as defined in See. 402(a) (f) of said Act is the proper basis appraisement of the involved automobiles.

> That the said cost of production is as shown in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part of this stipulation.

> That the said appeals for reappraisement are submitted for decision upon this stipulation this 14th day of June, 1962.

Upon the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise, covered by said appeals for reappraisement, and that such values are as shown on said schedule A.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.