alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Joachim Saunders, :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:11-cv-00517

v. : Judge Marbley

Whitehall Police Department and , : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant

:

ORDER

Plaintiff Joachim Saunders brings this action alleging that defendants unlawfully

arrested him. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's January 14,

2013 Report and Recommendation that defendants' unopposed motion for summary

judgment be granted. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation. The docket indicates that the Report and Recommendation mailed to

plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. At the time plaintiff filed this action, he was

incarcerated at the Franklin County Jail. He has been released from the jail, but he failed

to provide the Court with an updated mailing address.

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS defendant motion

for summary judgment. (Doc. 25 ). 

Because the Whitehall Police Department is a sub-unit of the city government, it

is merely a vehicle through which the city fulfills its policing functions. As a result, the

1

Case: 2:11-cv-00517-ALM-MRA Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Whitehall Police Department is not a proper defendant. Williams v. Dayton Police Dept., 

680 F. Supp. 1075, 1080 (S.D. Ohio 1987); Elam v. Montgomery County, 573 F. Supp. 797

(S.D. Ohio 1983). 

On May 22, 2012, plaintiff pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and carrying a

concealed weapon. See doc. 25 at PageID 113-14. A civil rights action is not a substitute

for habeas corpus. When a prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement,

his sole federal remedy is habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973);

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 787 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). A

convicted criminal defendant cannot bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment

on the claim “would necessarily imply the invalidity” of his criminal conviction and

that conviction has not been set aside. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Here a judgment for

plaintiff would necessarily undermine his criminal convictions, and those convictions

have not been set aside. Consequently, the complaint fails to state a claim for relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendants Detective

G. Grinstead and the Whitehall Police Department. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

Algenon L. Marbley

United States District Judge

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00517-ALM-MRA Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/25/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
exv10w61






Exhibit 10.61




                    , 200              




[Name]

[Address]

[Address]




     Re:   Indemnification Agreement



Dear                     :




     This letter agreement is to confirm that in consideration of your agreement to serve as a
director of Sysco Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation hereby
agrees to provide, by this contract, the indemnification rights now provided to you as a director
or officer of the Corporation in the Corporation’s Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as
amended and Amended and Restated Bylaws (copies of which, in the form in effect at the date hereof,
are attached hereto) and to continue to provide you with such rights as long as you serve as a
director or officer of the Corporation (regardless of any future modifications to the Corporation’s
Bylaws or Certificate of Incorporation), whether during your current term as a director or officer
or during any term of re-election, and after such service is completed, for as long as you are
exposed to any potential liability by reason of your service as a director or officer of the
Corporation. For purposes of this agreement, indemnification rights shall include all related
rights incorporated within Article VII of the current Amended and Restated Bylaws, including but
not limited to the right to advancement of expenses and the right of the indemnitee to bring suit.
All such rights shall be deemed to be fully vested upon the signing of this agreement, and any
future amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation or Bylaws shall not in any way reduce or
otherwise impair your rights as in effect as of the date hereof, regardless of whether such
amendments are made before or after a claim or action, with respect to which you seek
indemnification or advancement of expenses, is made or brought against you. As a point of
clarification, you shall have the same rights with respect to a claim made or action brought after
you cease to be a director of the Corporation as you would have respect to such claim made or
action brought while you continue to be a director of the Corporation. This agreement may not be
amended without the written consent of both parties.



     If the foregoing meets with your approval, please sign both copies of this letter and return
one of them to me.



Very truly yours,




SYSCO CORPORATION




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:	 	 






Agreed to and accepted this

                      day of                     , 200               .




                                                            

[Name]




Attachments
Ex-10.3






Exhibit 10.3




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.

MANAGEMENT STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




RECITALS:




     WHEREAS, LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. (the “Company”) established the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
Management Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) effective May 11, 1999, in order to encourage equity
ownership in the Company among its executives and to align the financial interests of such
executives and the Company’s stockholders;



     WHEREAS, the Plan was amended and restated effective December 16, 2002, without the need for
approval from the Company’s stockholders, in order to facilitate administration of the Plan;



     WHEREAS, Section 12 of the Plan provides that the board of directors of the Company may amend
the Plan at any time, subject to the approval of the Company’s stockholders where necessary;



     WHEREAS, the board of directors of the Company has authorized the amendment of the Plan to
increase the number of shares of the Company’s stock that are available for purchase under the Plan
by 75,000 shares, resulting in a total of 325,000 shares available under the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the stockholders of the Company approved this Amendment to the Plan in the annual
meeting of the Company on May 13, 2008;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by restating Section 4 of the Plan in its entirety
as follows, effective May 13, 2008:



     4. Stock Subject to the Plan.




     The maximum number of Shares which shall be distributed as Purchased Shares or in
respect of Purchased Share Units under the Plan shall be 325,000 Shares, which number shall
be subject to adjustment as provided in Section 9 hereof. Such Shares may be either
authorized but unissued Shares or Shares that shall have been or may be reacquired by the
Company.




     If any outstanding Purchased Shares or Purchased Share Units under the Plan shall be
forfeited, the related Shares shall (unless the Plan shall have been terminated) again be
available for use under the Plan



     Except as otherwise set forth herein, all other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain
in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the LifePoint Hospitals, Inc.
Management Stock Purchase Plan to be duly executed and delivered as of the 13th day of May, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John Bumpus	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President and 	 
	 	 	Chief Administrative Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9331 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the excise tax 

on investment income of private colleges and universities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 9, 2024 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio (for himself and Ms. MALLIOTAKIS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the excise tax on investment income of private colleges 

and universities. 

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 ‘‘Higher Education Ac5 countability Tax Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9331 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON INVESTMENT IN2 COME OF PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVER3 SITIES. 

4 (a) INCREASE IN RATE OF TAX.—Section 4968(a) of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘1.4 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘10 percent’’. 

7 (b) ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN RATE OF TAX FOR IN8 STITUTIONS WITH INCREASES IN NET PRICE.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 4968(a) of such 

10 Code, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by 

11 inserting ‘‘(20 percent in the case of a net-price-in12 crease institution)’’ after ‘‘10 percent’’. 

13 (2) NET-PRICE-INCREASE INSTITUTION.—Sec14 tion 4968(b) of such Code is amended by redesig15 nating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by in16 serting after paragraph (1) the following new para17 graph: 

18 ‘‘(2) NET-PRICE-INCREASE INSTITUTION.—The 

19 term ‘net-price-increase institution’ means any appli20 cable educational institution for any taxable year if, 

21 during the 3-taxable-year period ending with the 

22 taxable year immediately preceding such taxable 

23 year, the net price of such institution increased at 

24 a rate which exceeds the rate of increase in the Con25 sumer Price Index (as defined in section 1(f)(5)) for 

26 such period. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9331 IH

1 the term ‘net price’ has the meaning given such 

2 term by section 132(a)(3) of the Higher Education 

3 Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 1015a(a)(3)) except that 

4 such price shall be determined by taking into ac5 count all first-time, full-time undergraduate students 

6 at the institution (in addition to such students who 

7 receive student aid).’’. 

8 (c) EXPANSION OF INSTITUTIONS SUBJECT TO

9 TAX.—Section 4968(b)(1)(D) of such Code is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$250,000’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(Reap. Dec. 8941)

Entry No. 406.

#### Munsingwear, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 25, 1957)

*John B. Faegre, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted upon a stipulation to the effect that the market value or price at or about the date of exportation of the subject merchandise, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including all costs and charges specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was as follows:

> Item No. H-1121 Can. $15.75 per doz. pair, net packed

> Item No. HA-1120 Can. $14.30 per doz. pair, net packed

It has been further agreed that the export value was not higher. Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable foreign value of said merchandise to be as set out above. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION



In connection with the
annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Business Payment Solutions Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the
period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Peter Davidson, Chief Administrative Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|Date: January 14, 2013 | /s/ Peter Davidson           | 
|---------------------- | ---------------------------- | 
|                       | Peter Davidson               | 
|                       | Chief Administrative Officer |
EX-10.19







Exhibit 10.19


SCHEDULE OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE FORM OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 10.18


Each of the following Named Executive Officers has entered into a Form of Indemnification Agreement
as set forth in Exhibit 10.18 as of the date indicated below:



	 	 	 
	NAME	 	DATE
	 
	Carlos M. Cardoso

	 	May 29, 2003
	David W. Greenfield

	 	October 1, 2001
	John H. Jacko, Jr.

	 	March 5, 2007
	Frank P. Simpkins

	 	December 12, 2000
	Gary W. Weismann

	 	August 1, 2007
No. 48029.

#### Protests 718897-G, etc., of Morris Samuel et al. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items consist of 8-bu. paper hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 15'04 (b) (5) was sustained as to those items.
# C_2008110EN.01001702.xml

| 1.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5104 — Altor Fund II/Papyrus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 110/04)

On 21 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5104. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5104. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
# C_2008281EN.01000601.xml

| 5.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 November 2008

(2008/C 281/07)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2820 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,35 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4430 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8978 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4943 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 305,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,5615 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,163 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 259,86 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5266 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6850 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,333 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9379 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8554 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4949 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9358 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1103 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8885 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 635,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,6373 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7638 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1531 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 973,80 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5223 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,920 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,5664 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,799 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7525 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,1532 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2820

JPY

Japanese yen

127,35

DKK

Danish krone

7,4430

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80750

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8978

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4943

ISK

Iceland króna

305,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,5615

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,163

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

259,86

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5266

RON

Romanian leu

3,6850

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,333

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9379

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8554

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4949

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9358

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1103

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8885

KRW

South Korean won

1 635,83

ZAR

South African rand

12,6373

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7638

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1531

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 973,80

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5223

PHP

Philippine peso

61,920

RUB

Russian rouble

34,5664

THB

Thai baht

44,799

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7525

MXN

Mexican peso

16,1532

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50190

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CAROL WATKINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-176-6

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carol Watkins, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed following his 

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 846. He was sentenced to 

165 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He 

contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 12, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50190 Document: 00512834088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2014
No. 14-50190

32(i)(3)(B) and denied him due process by failing to rule on his objection to the 

drug quantity.

Because Watkins did not raise these claims of error in the district court, 

review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); 

United States v. Jackson, 453 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court 

implicitly determined that a ruling on the drug quantity was unnecessary 

because it would not affect sentencing. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(3)(B). 

Contrary to Watkins’s argument, his unadjusted offense level under U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.1(b), the career offender Guideline, was 32 because the offense statutory 

maximum was “20 years or more, but less than 25 years.” § 4B1.1(b)(3); see

§ 841(b)(1)(C). Thus, Watkins had the same total offense level and guidelines 

range under § 4B1.1(b) as calculated in the presentence report under § 2D1.1, 

the drug trafficking Guideline. Accordingly, the district court complied with 

Rule 32(i)(3)(B) and did not deprive Watkins of an opportunity to be heard on 

a material issue or fail to make relevant findings of fact. Further, Watkins 

cannot show that his substantial rights were affected. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at

135. Even if the district court had ruled in his favor on the drug quantity, thus 

lowering his base offense level under § 2D1.1, Watkins still would have faced 

the same guidelines range since the higher offense level under § 4B1.1 would 

have applied. See § 4B1.1(b).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50190 Document: 00512834088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2014
The manner in which you use and the purpose to which you put and utilize our products, technical assistance and information (whether verbal, 

written or by way of production evaluations), including any suggested formulations and recommendations, are beyond our control. Therefore, it is 

imperative that you test our products, technical assistance and information to determine to your own satisfaction whether our products, technical 

assistance and information are suitable for your intended uses and applications. This application-specific analysis must at least include testing to 

determine suitability from a technical as well as health, safety, and environmental standpoint. Such testing has not necessarily been done by us. 

Unless we otherwise agree in writing, all products are sold strictly pursuant to the terms of our standard conditions of sale which are available 

upon request. All information and technical assistance is given without warranty or guarantee and is subject to change without notice. It is 

expressly understood and agreed that you assume and hereby expressly release us from all liability, in tort, contract or otherwise, incurred in 

connection with the use of our products, technical assistance, and information. Any statement or recommendation not contained herein is 

unauthorized and shall not bind us. Nothing herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with any claim of any 

patent relative to any material or its use. No license is implied or in fact granted under the claims of any patent. 

As previously stated, the reentry times shown above are based on emissions testing of BaysealTM 

CC and BaysealTM OC SPF insulation. BMS believes these reentry times are appropriate for all of 

its BaysealTM and EcoBayTM SPF insulation products. 

Please note that the reentry times are based on the following assumptions: 1) that the SPF insulation 

was applied in accordance with BMS recommendations; and 2) following the 24 hour ventilation 

period, the structure maintains a minimum outdoor air exchange rate that meets or exceeds the 

accepted industry standard (ASHRAE 62.1 or 62.2) through natural infiltration or mechanical 

means. 

For detailed and up-to-date information on SPF worker health and safety, including Material Safety 

Data Sheets (MSDS), safe use and handling guidelines, and a health and safety information 

program, please visit www.spf.bayermaterialscience.com and click on the BayCare link on the left 

menu. In addition, note that www.spraypolyurethane.org contains useful SPF health and safety 

information. Please contact your BMS representative for more information. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Lambach 

Technology Head 

Bayer MaterialScience Spray Insulation and Roofing Materials 

412- 777-4831 

Brian F. Karlovich, CIH, CSP 

Product Safety Representative 

Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Department 

412- 777-4808