alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Description of performance bonus arrangement for executive officers for the
calendar year ending December 31, 1998 ("1998"):

     The executive officers of the Company will be entitled to receive
incentive bonus payments based on the Company's quarterly, year-to-date and
full year earnings per share for 1998.

     If earnings per share for the first quarter of 1998 is at least $0.12,
the executive officers would each earn 10% of their respective annual base
salaries for 1998 ("1998 base salaries").  If first quarter earnings per share
is at least $0.15, they each would earn 20% of their respective 1998 base
salaries.

     If after the first two quarters of 1998, earnings per share is at least
$0.32, $0.40 or $0.60, each would receive 20%, 40% or 60% of their respective
1998 base salaries, less the incentive bonus earned for the first quarter of
1998.

     If earnings per share for the third quarter of 1998 is at least $0.20,
the executive officers would each earn 10% of their respective 1998 base
salaries.  If third quarter earnings per share is at least $0.25, they each
would earn 20% of their respective 1998 base salaries.

     If earnings per share for the full year of 1998 are at least $.65, $.80
or $1.20, each of the executive officers would earn 40%, 80% or 120% of their
respective 1998 base salaries, less all incentive bonus amounts previously
earned under this 1998 performance bonus arrangement.  If full year earnings
per share fall between the aforementioned benchmarks, the percentage of their
respective 1998 base salaries used to calculate the full year annual incentive
bonus shall be the prorated percentage between the applicable full year
earnings per share targets.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54850-54851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27898]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that

[[Page 54851]]

is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the 
Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than November 5, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
    1. Area Bancshares Corporation, Owensboro, Kentucky; to acquire 
Security First Network Bank, Atlanta, Georgia, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Solutions by Design, Inc. (``Solutions''), Atlanta, Georgia, 
and thereby engage in developing and providing data processing and data 
transmission services to financial institutions for use in providing 
products and services over the Internet, pursuant to Sec.  
225.28(b)(14) of the Board's Regulation Y. The acquisition will be 
accomplished through the merger of Solutions with and into Security 
First Technologies, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, a wholly-owned subsidiary 
of Security First Network Bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 16, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-27898 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### M. Hampton MAGRUDER, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Maryland, Appellant, v. MOUNT VERNON - WOODBERRY MILLS, Inc., a Corporation, Appellee.

No. 4131.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 16, 1936.

Bernard J. Flynn, U. S. Atty., of Baltimore, Md., for appellant.

Hunter H. Moss, of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Case docketed and dismissed on motion of appellee.
Order entered August 10, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00386-CV

IN RE HAMP WILLIAMS TRUST

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08491

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal is past due. By postcard dated May 2, 

2018, we notified Vielica Dobbins, Official Court Reporter for the 134th Judicial District Court, 

that the reporter’s record was overdue and directed her to file the reporter’s record within ten 

days. By order dated May 24, 2018, we again notified Ms. Dobbins the reporter’s record was 

overdue and ordered her to, within ten days, file either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written 

verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant had not 

requested the reporter’s record. On June 4, 2018 appellant filed a letter informing the Court that 

appellant was unable to reach Ms. Dobbins, either by telephone or by email, to determine the 

costs of the record. Therefore, on June 8, 2018, we ordered Ms. Dobbins to file written 

verification she had contacted appellant regarding the cost of the reporter’s record within three 

days and to file the record within six days of the date of the order. In that order, we expressly 

cautioned Ms. Dobbins that failure to comply with the order would result in the Court taking 
such actions as necessary to have her comply with the Court’s orders, including an order that she 

not sit as a court reporter until she complied. 

In response, Ms. Dobbins filed a motion to extend time to file the reporter’s record. By 

order dated July 17, 2018, we extended the time to file the reporter’s record until July 23, 2018. 

By postcard dated July 25, 2018, we once again notified Ms. Dobbins the reporter’s record was 

late and ordered her to file the record with ten days. By letter dated August 3, 2018, appellant 

again complained to the Court regarding Ms. Dobbins’s failure to file the record or to contact 

appellant regarding the cost of the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, we ORDER that Vielica Dobbins, Official Court Reporter for the 134th 

Judicial District Court, not sit as a court reporter until she has filed the complete reporter’s 

record in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to (1) the Honorable Dale Tillery, 

Presiding Judge, 134th Judicial District Court, Criminal District Court No. 7; (2) Vielica 

Dobbins, Official Court Reporter, 134th Judicial District Court; (3) the Dallas County Auditor’s 

Office; and (4) all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                        FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

        In connection with the quarterly report of Seminis, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gaspar Alvarez
Martinez, Vice President, Finance and Worldwide Corporate Comptroller of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b), as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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: May 10, 2004

                                         /s/ Gaspar Alvarez Martinez
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Gaspar Alvarez Martinez
                                         VP Finance and WW Corporate Comptroller
#### Irene Walker Taylor ARNOLD v. Marie Berry BYRD.

No. 45359.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 12, 1969.

Howie, Montgomery & Currie, Jackson, for appellant.

John C. McLaurin, Brandon, for appel-lee.

RODGERS, Justice:

This is a suit to cancel a warranty deed as a cloud upon the title of the home of the appellee, Marie Berry Byrd. The suit was filed and tried in the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, and resulted in a final decree cancelling the deed as being a forgery.

The relevant facts essential to this opinion are as follows: John Byrd owned two acres of land near Star, in Rankin County, Mississippi. He married the appellee, with whom he had been living and cohabiting, on July 3, 1967. He died on July 20, 1967. His wife remained on the property in question as her home.

On July 25, 1967 the appellant, Irene Walker Taylor Arnold, filed an alleged warranty deed in the office of the Chancery Clerk for recordation. The deed appeared to have been acknowledged and signed by the mark of John Byrd on July 21, 1961. The acknowledgment was notarized by a notary public in the state of Florida.

The appellee offered testimony to show that the deceased, John Byrd, did not go to *411Florida on the date shown in the deed. Moreover, the deposition of the notary public described the person who signed the deed to be five feet seven or eight inches tall, weighing about 165 pounds, whereas the proof shows that John Byrd was six feet one or two inches tall and weighed about 200 pounds. He wore a size *161/2*shirt.

The grantee in the alleged deed was the sister of the deceased and members of her family claimed that they saw John Byrd sign the deed by his mark. Checks were introduced into the record showing the signature of the deceased, although he did not sign the application for the marriage by his signature, but did sign by his mark.

The Chancellor determined that the deed was a forgery.

On appeal to this Court, the appellant, grantee in the deed, contends that the Chancellor did not give proper evi-dentiary weight to the strong presumption of the jurat of the attesting officer in the deed. It is true that there is a presumption that a certificate of acknowledgment states the truth; moreover, the introduction of a properly acknowledged deed into evidence establishes a prima facie case that such deed is genuine. Such an acknowledgment can only be overthrown by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate.

An examination of the record, however, has convinced us that the testimony in this case is overwhelmingly in favor of the complainant. It is clear, cogent and convincing.

We are therefore of the opinion that the Chancellor was correct in cancel-ling the deed as a cloud upon the title of the appellee, Marie Berry Byrd, to the property described in the decree of the Chancery Court. Clark v. Lansford, 191 So.2d 123 (Miss.1966).

The final decree must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and JONES, BRADY and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
# Appendix 4. Nutrients
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54635-54636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27733]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY


Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.), this notice announces that the information collection request 
described below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) 
is requesting an emergency approval by October 31, 1997, in accordance 
with 5 CFR 1320.13. In order that OMB will have an opportunity to 
consider comments from interested individuals on the information 
collection request described below, such comments should be submitted 
to OMB on or before October 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Nancy Speight, Director of Program Development, Office of 
the General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Suite 210, 607 
14th

[[Page 54636]]

St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20424. Joseph Lackey, Paperwork Clearance 
Officer for the FLRA, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., 
N.W., Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For more information, to submit comments or to 
request a copy of the OMB submission, please contact Nancy Speight at 
the address listed above or by telephone at 202-482-6680 ext. 205. 
Interested parties may also submit comments to Joseph Lackey at the 
address given above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    Needs and Uses: The Customer Satisfaction Survey will be 
disseminated to persons making use of the services and procedures of 
the FLRA, to obtain input as to the degree of success the agency has 
achieved in meeting the objective of its Strategic Plan concerning 
providing high quality services in timely resolving disputes in the 
federal sector labor-management relations community.
    Respondents: Approximately 200 persons, within the meaning of 5 CFR 
1320.3(k), who are representatives of labor organizations and are not 
federal employees. In addition, approximately 4500 federal employees 
who are either representatives of labor organizations or of management 
of various employer agencies of the executive branch will also receive 
the Survey.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 30 minutes per response; 200 respondents 
for the purposes of burden calculation under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act; 100 total annual burden hours.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Solly Thomas,
Executive Director, FLRA.
[FR Doc. 97-27733 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
#### Donald Alan MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1414, 77-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 18, 1977.

Angus M. Stephens, Jr., Coral Gables, and Lawrence A. Freeman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant appeals an Order of the trial court denying his Motion for bail pending appeal.' There were two Orders entered below denying “supersedeas bond”, both of which were dated and rendered on the 2nd day of March, 1977 and both of which are insufficient. One of the Orders says:

> “The Defendant fails to meet the criteria laid down in *Younghans v. State,*90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956) in that the Defendant might not remain in the jurisdiction of the Court and the Defendant has had a divorce and his family ties in the community are less at this time. Defendant’s Motion to Set Supersedeas Bond is hereby denied at this time.”

The other says:

> “Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Set Su-persedeas Bond is hereby denied. The Defendant fails to meet the criteria laid down in *Younghans v. State,*90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956) as per companion Order entered this date.”

The purpose of bail is generally recognized as to insure the return of the Defendant if recalled by the court. When the trial court stated in its Order “the Defendant might not remain in the jurisdiction of the Court” it is begging the question. Therefore it appears the only reason for the denial of bail pending appeal is that the Defendant has had a divorce and has lost a family tie to the community. Perhaps this is the only reason the trial court entered its Order but since the Order denies bail “at this time” we are not sure of the exact ruling of the court and the reasons therefor. *McCormack v. State,*338 So.2d *715208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We have reviewed the transcript provided and find that there is very little, if any, testimony on which to base the Order so we must remand this matter. This cause is remanded with directions to vacate the Orders denying bail entered on March 2, 1977 and with further directions to hold a hearing to determine whether or not bail should be granted and enter an order in compliance with the directives of Fla.App. Rule 6.15 and *McCormack v. State,*supra.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LETTS, J., and WEAVER, SIDNEY M., Associate Judge, concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. 06-118 Erie

)

PATRICIA THOMPSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on 

May 18, 2006 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, filed on May 26, 2006,

recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 1] be

denied and the case dismissed without prejudice. The parties were allowed ten (10)

days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by

certified mail at SCI Albion, where he is incarcerated. No objections were filed. After

de novo review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with the report

and recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 21st Day of June, 2006;

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

[Doc. # 1] be and hereby is DENIED and the case DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated May

26, 2006 [ Doc. # 6], is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

 s/ SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: all parties of record 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Baxter

Case 1:06-cv-00118-SJM-SPB Document 7 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 1
#### R. G. MILLER v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 1511.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 1937.

Edgar C. Jensen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellant.

Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
# L_2005009EN.01000101.xml

| 12.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 9/1

---

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

of 28 December 2004

complementary to Recommendation 96/129/EC on the European firearms pass

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/11/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1) provides for the introduction of a European firearms pass. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1) provides for the introduction of a European firearms pass.

| (2) | In Commission Recommendation 93/216/EEC of 25 February 1993 on the European firearms pass (2) and in Commission Recommendation 96/129/EC of 12 January 1996 supplementing Recommendation 93/216/EEC on the European firearms pass (3), the Commission invited the Member States to introduce this document in accordance with a model annexed to the Recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In Commission Recommendation 93/216/EEC of 25 February 1993 on the European firearms pass (2) and in Commission Recommendation 96/129/EC of 12 January 1996 supplementing Recommendation 93/216/EEC on the European firearms pass (3), the Commission invited the Member States to introduce this document in accordance with a model annexed to the Recommendations.

| (3) | This model for the European firearms pass needs to be modified to take account of the accession of the new Member States, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

This model for the European firearms pass needs to be modified to take account of the accession of the new Member States,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

Article 1

The Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic shall introduce the European firearms pass in accordance with the model annexed to this Recommendation.

Article 2

The other Member States, which issue the European firearms pass in accordance with the model annexed to Recommendation 96/129/EC, shall gradually introduce the pass in accordance with the model annexed to the present Recommendation as the stocks of the old pass are exhausted and by 1 May 2006 at the latest.

Done at Brussels, 28 December 2004.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 17.4.1993, p. 39.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 30, 8.2.1996, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

Modification of the European firearms pass (1996 model) incorporating linguistic amendments necessitated by the enlargement of 1 May 2004.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3469 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, farm, and 

food worker stabilization grant program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, 

farm, and food worker stabilization grant program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GROCERY, FARM, AND FOOD WORKER STA4 BILIZATION GRANT PROGRAM. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—The term ‘‘eligible enti7 ty’’ means a membership organization, as deter8 mined by the Secretary, or labor union representing 

9 farmworkers, meat processing workers, or grocery 

10 workers. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3469 IS

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

3 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary, acting 

4 through the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 

5 Service, shall establish a grant program to provide funding 

6 to eligible entities representing farmworkers, meat proc7 essing workers, and grocery workers for stabilization pay8 ments in the case of a natural disaster or other disaster, 

9 as determined by the Secretary. 

10 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after the date 

11 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

12 the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representa13 tives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

14 Forestry of the Senate a report describing the outcomes 

15 and evaluating the impacts of the program established 

16 under subsection (b). 

17 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

18 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

19 $50,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB