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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Timothy Buford,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-2083 GEB PAN P 

vs.

Solano County Jail, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

timely filed a notice of appeal of this court's March 22, 2005,

denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of

appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

22(b).

Petitioner requests leave to file a late appeal. Good

cause appearing, petitioner’s request is granted and his notice

of appeal is deemed timely.

Case 2:04-cv-02083-GEB-PAN Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 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

2

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28

U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required

showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should

not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s

February 22, 2005, findings and recommendations, petitioner has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability should not

issue in this action.

Dated: May 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02083-GEB-PAN Document 19 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007052EN.01001201.xml

| 7.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/12 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Eurolife Assurance (International) Limited

Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings.

(2007/C 52/08)

| Insurance undertaking | Eurolife Assurance (International) Limited Eurolife Building 1 Corral Road Gibraltar | Eurolife Assurance (International) Limited | Eurolife Building | 1 Corral Road | Gibraltar |
| ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------- | --------------- | --------- |
| Eurolife Assurance (International) Limited | | | | | |
| Eurolife Building | | | | | |
| 1 Corral Road | | | | | |
| Gibraltar | | | | | |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | 23 August 2006
Entry into force: 23 August 2006
Opening of winding-up proceedings | | | | |
| Competent authorities | Supreme Court of Gibraltar Chancery Jurisdiction 277 Main Street Gibraltar | Supreme Court of Gibraltar | Chancery Jurisdiction | 277 Main Street | Gibraltar |
| Supreme Court of Gibraltar | | | | | |
| Chancery Jurisdiction | | | | | |
| 277 Main Street | | | | | |
| Gibraltar | | | | | |
| Supervisory authority | Financial Services Commission Suite 943 Europort Gibraltar | Financial Services Commission | Suite 943 | Europort | Gibraltar |
| Financial Services Commission | | | | | |
| Suite 943 | | | | | |
| Europort | | | | | |
| Gibraltar | | | | | |
| Liquidator appointed | Frederick White Grant Thornton (Gibraltar) Limited 6A Queensway Gibraltar Richard Simms FA Simms & Partners Plc Sovereign House 212-214 Shaftsbury Avenue London WC2H 8HQ United Kingdom | Frederick White | Grant Thornton (Gibraltar) Limited | 6A Queensway | Gibraltar |
| Frederick White | | | | | |
| Grant Thornton (Gibraltar) Limited | | | | | |
| 6A Queensway | | | | | |
| Gibraltar | | | | | |
| Richard Simms | | | | | |
| FA Simms & Partners Plc | | | | | |
| Sovereign House | | | | | |
| 212-214 Shaftsbury Avenue | | | | | |
| London WC2H 8HQ | | | | | |
| United Kingdom | | | | | |
| Applicable law | Gibraltar
Section 235, Companies Ordinance, 1930 | | | | |

---
EX-10.9



 EXHIBIT 10.9 

DESCRIPTION OF HORIZON BANCORP 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN 

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Horizon Bancorp (the “Company”) adopted an
Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) in 2003 after consultations with a nationally recognized executive compensation consulting firm. The Plan permits executive officers to earn as a bonus a percentage of their salary based on the
achievement of corporate and individual goals in the relevant year. Participants in the Plan are not eligible to participate in the Company’s annual discretionary bonus plan. To receive a bonus under the Plan, the executive officer must be
employed by the Company or one of its subsidiaries on the date the annual bonus payment is made and must not be subject to a performance warning or suspension. The Committee and/or the Company’s Chief Executive Officer may adjust and amend the
Plan at any time in their sole discretion. 
 At the beginning of each year, the Committee establishes the minimum earnings target the
Company must achieve before any bonuses will be paid out under the Plan for that year. The Committee also approves a target bonus matrix for each executive officer to be used to calculate the executive officer’s bonus (if any) for the year
(assuming that the minimum earnings target has been met). The matrix for each executive officer specifies the performance measures applicable to the executive officer, the targets for each performance measure and the weight to be assigned to each
performance measure in calculating the bonus if the specified target levels are achieved. 
 Each executive officer has the opportunity to
earn a bonus under the Plan of up to a specified percentage of his base salary. Each of the executive officers has as a performance goal the achievement of a specified level of corporate net income for the year. The matrix for each of the executive
officers also specifies from three to five other performance measures, each of which is dependent upon the executive officer’s areas of responsibilities and varies from year to year to reflect changes in the primary responsibilities of the
office that the executive officer holds. 
 The percentage of base salary that may be earned and the weighting of performance goals are
disclosed each year in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of the Company’s Proxy Statement. The amounts of the bonuses paid each year under the Plan are reported in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan
Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table included in the Company’s Proxy Statement.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11857-11858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4628]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS07-3-000]


Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Request for Partial 
Exemption From the Standards of Conduct

March 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 26, 2007, Southern California Edison 
Company pursuant to section 358.1(d) of the Commission's regulations, 
filed a request for an exemption from the limitation to ``non-
affiliated'' customers from the Standards of Conduct issued by the 
Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC

[[Page 11858]]

Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3858691808cadafaaada690b6b3b3acb1b783a5a6b1a0eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 28, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4628 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4869 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification 

requirement for emergency contract health services for certain beneficiaries, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. ROUNDS (for himself and Ms. CORTEZ MASTO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to modify the notification requirement for emergency contract 

health services for certain beneficiaries, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Health Service 

5 Emergency Claims Parity Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4869 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR EMERGENCY CONTRACT 

2 HEALTH SERVICES. 

3 Section 406 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

4 Act (25 U.S.C. 1646) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘With respect to’’ and inserting 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(b) ELDERLY OR DISABLED INDIANS.—With re8 spect to’’; and 

9 (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so 

10 designated) the following: 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

12 (b), with respect to an Indian receiving emergency medical 

13 care or services from a non-Service provider or in a non14 Service facility under the authority of this Act, the time 

15 limitation (as a condition of payment) for notifying the 

16 Service of such treatment or admission shall be 15 days.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottChief Executive OfficerNovember 15, 2010
Before the Third Division,

July 24, 1942

No. 47412.

#### Protests 829087-G, etc., of Donald B. Pocock et al. (Cleveland, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8263)

#### United States *v.*H. Z. Bernstein Company

Entry No. CE 726171.

(Decided November 25, 1953)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the defendant.

*414Ekwall, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the item invoiced herein as .“300 cases Sardo cheese” at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was $.23%, plus proportionate part of cost of covering per pound of cheese, U. S. Funds; cost of inedible covering is $.23% per pound of inedible covering, packing included, less ocean freight, export duty, carriage and loading charges, and consular invoice fee, as stated on the invoice.

> That there was no higher foreign value at the time of exportation; and that this case may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the 300 cases of sardo cheese here involved, and that such value was $0.23%, plus proportionate part of cost of covering per pound of cheese, United States funds; cost of inedible covering was $0.23% per pound of inedible covering, packing included, less ocean freight, export duty, carriage and loading charges, and consular invoice fee, as stated on the invoice.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS JOHNSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 258 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 106 ) ll-E-6 6

Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06

AM Sheet 106 of 264Mar-24-9 7 05:23 P Jess e Downhou r 216-322-S33 0 P. 2 P . 0 2 

## A-94-5 2 E-E From : Date : Contact : Company : Contac tRepor t

Melani e Proctor

, Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Marc h 17,199 7 Mr . Mar k Skrype k Innotec h Industries , Inc. Telephon e Number : (216 ) 322-827 0 Fa x Number : (216 ) 322-833 0



# > 4 Contac tSummary :

Ms . Procto

r contacte d Genera l Industrie s t o clarif y infonnatio n provided i n th e 199 3 EP A screenin g survey . Whe

n callin g th

e contac tphon e numbe r provide d i n the 199

3 EP A screenin g survey , Ms . Procto

r wa s informe

d th e Genera

l bulustries i s n o loiige r u i busines s an d tha tdi e production facilit

y wa s purchase

d b y Innotech , which ca

n b e contacte

d a t(216 ) 322-8270 . 

# <4 Mr. Mar k Skrype k a tInnotec h Industrie

s wa s contacte

d t o determin

e i f Innotec h Industrie s conduct s th e same productio

n processe s as Genera

l Industrie s an d i f Innotec h bdustriesisa-ujorspi-tt^emis-lons . Mr . Skrype k explaine d tha tInnotec h purchase

d ~r-fe 4SJe7

_ Genera l Industrie

s m j^^afle f

Genera l Industrie s declare d bankruptcy

. Accordin g t o Mr . Skrypek , Innotec

h Industrie

s discontinue

d di e bul k molding compoun

d production tha

twa s conducte d b y Genera

l Industries . Mr. Skrype

k pointed ou

ttha tth e onl y productio

n proces s use d b y Innotec

h Industrie

s i s compression moldin

g wit h shee tmolding compoun

d (SMC) . Accordin g t o Mr

. Skrypek , th e SM C i s purchase

d from outsid e source s an

d no tproduced a

t Innotec h Industries . Whe n aske d i f Innotec h Industrie

s i s a mty'o

r sourc e o f emissions , Mr

. Skrype k explained tha tth e facilit

y onl y use s approximatel

y 175,00 0 t o 180,00 0 pounds o f SM C pe r year , whic h woul d no tmak

e the m a nuu'o r source . However

, Mr . Skrype k pointe d ou

ttha tInnotec h Industrie s coul d expan

d i n the future . Ms . Procto

r explained tha

tInnotec h Industrie

s woul d notb e include

d into di e EPA' s Nationa l Emissio n Standar

d for Hazardou

s Ai r Pollutant

s d__h»« » for th e reinforced plasti c composite s industr

y because , base

d o n this conversation , Innotec h Industrie

s doe s no thav e di e potentia l t o b e major

. _ , , * /- . \ / /

_ . \ / /7

J INFORMATIO

N I S ACCURAT

E 

# ( n
Exhibit 11. Statement re computation of per share earnings


                                Avg           Avg Common
                               Common         & Dilutive      Basic     Dilutive
Year        Net Income       Shares O/S       Shares O/S       EPS         EPS
----        ----------       ----------       ----------       ---         ---
1999        $ 221,612         2,005,158        2,086,505      $0.11       $0.11
1998          220,825         2,005,121        2,046,813       0.11        0.11
1997          263,377         2,002,343        2,006,777       0.13        0.13
#### In the Matter of Ironworkers Local No. 60 Training, Skill Improvement, Education and Apprenticeship Fund, by J. Kevin McDermott, as Trustee, Appellant-Respondent, v Department of Assessment of the City of Syracuse et al., Respondents-Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 549]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to RPTL article 7. Although that *942article was amended (L 1994, ch 563, eff July 26, 1994), the amendments are prospective only *(see, Matter of Endicott Johnson Corp. v Assessor of Town of Union,*209 AD2d 759). Thus, the court properly determined that the amendments to RPTL 702 (3) and 704 (1) should not be applied retroactively. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Roy, J.—Renewal.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4659 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4659

 To require that the President's annual budget submission to Congress 
 and any concurrent resolution on the budget include the ratio of the 
   public debt to the estimated gross domestic product of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2024

  Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Mr. 
    Tillis) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require that the President's annual budget submission to Congress 
 and any concurrent resolution on the budget include the ratio of the 
   public debt to the estimated gross domestic product of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Debt-to-GDP Transparency and 
Stabilization Act''.

SEC. 2. RATIO OF PUBLIC DEBT TO GDP INCLUDED IN PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 
              SUBMISSION AND CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET.

    (a) President's Budget Submission.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(40) the ratio of the public debt to the estimated gross 
        domestic product.''.
    (b) Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--Section 301(a) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
632(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) the ratio of the public debt to the estimated gross 
        domestic product.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 , fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of East Coast Diversified Corporation. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November 22, 2010                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                   |
| Kayode AladesuyiChief Executive OfficerInterim Chief Financial Officer |

----
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOL GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1927 FCD GGH P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for a USM-285 form for defendant

Hansen. This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed February 7, 2005, which does

not name Hansen as a defendant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 6, 2005, request for

a USM-285 form is denied.

DATED: 7/21/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

gar1927.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 1