alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
813 A.2d 260

#### Bernice L. GARRISON, v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 108,

Sept. Term, 2002.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 20, 2002.

Jennifer P. Lyman (Director, Federal Criminal *&*Appellate Clinic), Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Steven L. Holcomb, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland), Baltimore, for respondent.

Submitted before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the above captioned case, it is this 20th day of December, 2002,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Special Appeals with directions to reverse the judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a new trial. *See Pinkney v. State,*350 Md. 201, 711 A.2d 205 (1998).

Costs in this Court and in the Court of Special Appeals to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
#### H. G. WHITTON, Appellant, v. Francisco SUAREZ, Appellee.

No. 77-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 30, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1977.

Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, Miami, for appellant.

W. Ronald Chaffin, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *South Florida Apartment Ass’n v. Dansyear,*347 So.2d 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and cases collected; *Elmex Corp. v. Atlantic Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n of Ft. Lauderdale,*325 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Horace v. American National Bank and Trust Co. of Ft. Lauderdale,*251 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Odell v. Signer,*169 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964).
Exhibit 12.1

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  EXHIBIT 12.1COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

The following table sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007 and the years ended
December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003, computed by dividing net fixed charges (interest expense on all debt plus the interest element (one-third) of operating leases) into
earnings (earnings before income taxes and fixed charges).

|                                          |                                    | Three Months Ended
March 31, |           | Years Ended
December 31,
|----------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------
|
|
|Net (loss) earnings                       |                                    | $                            | (893,053  | )                       
|Income tax (benefit) expense              |                                    |                              | (599,174  | )                       
|Interest expense                          |                                    |                              | 2,075,239 |                         
|Interest portion of rental                |                                    |                              | 19,015    |                         
|                                          |                                    |                              |           |                         
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges |                                    | $                            | 602,027   |                         
|                                          |                                    |                              |           |                         
|Fixed charges:                            |                                    |                              |           |                         
|                                          | Interest expense                   |                              | $         | 2,075,239               
|                                          | Interest portion of rental expense |                              |           | 19,015                  
|                                          |                                    |                              |           |                         
|                                          |                                    | Total fixed charges          |           | $                       
|                                          |                                    |                              |           |                         
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges        |                                    |                              | 0.29      |                         
|                                          |                                    |                              |           |                         

---



QuickLinks
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

HonOrrblQ 080. A. shspprd 

Comptrel ler of Rtbllc Aceauw5t.n 

nsar Yr. Sheppard: 

palid under the protldana 

Wstutest uMeh prorlden 

the St4 te Borrd af 2saadnerr. Gait3 ArtSale clpsa¶ffoeYly prorfdaa that ‘no ~parson shall rcoaelre the rtmotmemtatian of the 

County 6ttperdntentlemt rl the& fjtst dopOd t*aC; wl tb the %Ud? 

?Tupewlntemdent the mm of M-00 es an exasfnaflbn feat and t~hs 

roaorwendatfan given by the Cotmty Superintendent da11 show 

the mwel*t ei ua*d fee.* 

~Sald mtatute al80 requires the Cowty Brrperintsadent 

rhon he senda the papeia tn the Wtsttt Buperintandent to semd 
Ae we undermtmd, the request here .wde in am to 

wbetber the @.OO tbnt -8 sent to the *tata Superlntm&mt 

;sq b refunUeU ta the 0ppYiaan t, who lue gena to morto 

4UW, and rho ,for mid re8wn does not nom desire a teaaber’ s 

eertitiort+.
Document

Exhibit 10.21


March 6, 2020
Jennifer Nuckles,
In recognition of your continued growth and success at SoFi, effective March 11, 2020, I am happy to inform you that you are being promoted into the role of Executive Vice President and Group Business Unit Leader - Relay, Lantern, Content @ Work & Partnerships.
In recognition of your promotion, your base pay will increase to $400,000 per year. Your discretionary bonus target will be 100% paid annually, dependent upon company as well as your individual performance. In addition, you will be granted 200,000 stock units (“RSUs”) subject to the approval of the Company’s Board of Directors.
1/16 of the total Number of Shares subject to the RSU Award will vest 3 months after the vest commencement date of March 14th, 2020, and 1/16th of the total Number of Shares subject to the RSU Award will vest on each 3 month anniversary of such date thereafter (and if there is no corresponding day, on the last day of the month) subject to the recipient’s Continuous Service Status (as defined in the Plan) through each vesting date.
Thank you for your contributions, hard work and dedication. We are pleased that you are part of SoFi and are appreciative of all the work you have done. We look forward to your continued contributions as SoFi grows.
Best Regards,
Anthony Noto
Chief Executive Officer
SoFi, Inc., 234 1st Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 www.sofi.com
EX-10.15





 Exhibit 10.15 

Addendum to Service Agreement 












 This addendum to the service agreement dated 21 August 2017 (the “Addendum”) is entered into
between: 
 IO Biotech ApS 
 [***] 

(the “Company”) 
 and 

Mai-Britt Zocca 

(the“CEO”) 
  

	1	 Remuneration 


  


	1.1	 Effective from 1 April 2021, the annual gross salary amounts to DKK 2,400,000. The salary is pay 1/12
monthly in arrears not later than on the last business day of each month. 


  

	2	 Pension scheme 



 

	2.1	 In addition to the gross salary, the Company pays a pension contribution corresponding to 10% of the CEO’s
gross salary, cf. clause 1.1. The CEO’s minimum pension contribution constitutes 3% of the CEO’s gross salary, cf. clause 1.1 


  

	3	 Other terms of employment 



 

	3.1	 All other terms and conditions of the employment remain unchanged. 



 

	3.2	 The CEO is to enclose this addendum to the service agreement. Addenda to the service agreement from an integral
part of the service agreement. 


  

					
	Date:                                     
   	 		 	Date:                                     
   
			
	For and on behalf of the Company:	 		 	
			
	/s/ Peter Hirth	 		 	/s/ Mai-Britt Zocca
	Peter Hirth, Chairman	 		 	Mai-Britt Zocca
			
	/s/ Priyanka Belawat	 		 	
	Priyanka Belawat, Board member
#### Willie DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Peter DOMINGEAUX, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3514.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, by James G. Dubuisson, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard B. Millspaugh, Opelousas, for defendant-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, MILLER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

This is a companion case to Domingeaux v. Davis et al., 250 So.2d 432 (our docket number 3512) in which the merits of this case are considered.

Mr. Willie Davis alleged that Mr. Peter Domingeaux’s negligence caused the June 1, 1968 accident. He sought damages for 1) the cost of repairs to his automobile, 2) depreciation, 3) mental anguish, and 4) inconvenience arising out of loss of use of his automobile. The trial court awarded judgment to defendant Domin-geaux.

In the companion case, we affirmed the trial court’s finding that the negligence of Mr. Willie Davis was the sole legal cause of the accident.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff appellant.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2198 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2198

 To direct the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library to obtain a 
 statue of Shirley Chisholm for placement in the United States Capitol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

 Ms. Clarke of New York (for herself, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Watson Coleman, 
Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Norton, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Payne, Mr. 
  Carson, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Johnson of 
   Georgia, Mrs. Lawrence, Ms. Bass, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. McEachin, Ms. 
Pressley, Mr. Evans, Ms. Plaskett, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Thompson 
of Mississippi, Mrs. McBath, Mrs. Demings, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Ms. 
  Strickland, and Ms. Bush) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library to obtain a 
 statue of Shirley Chisholm for placement in the United States Capitol.

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

SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUE OF SHIRLEY CHISHOLM IN UNITED STATES 
              CAPITOL.

    (a) Obtaining Statue.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library 
shall enter into an agreement to obtain a statue of Shirley Chisholm, 
under such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee considers 
appropriate consistent with applicable law. The Joint Committee may 
authorize the Architect of the Capitol to enter into the agreement and 
related contracts required under this subsection on its behalf, under 
such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee may require.
    (b) Placement.--The Joint Committee of Congress on the Library 
shall place the statue obtained under subsection (a) in a public 
permanent location in the United States Capitol.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, and 
any amounts so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
### Draft Agenda

GM

– EPA Tier 3 Meeting

August 14, 2013

A. Rulemaking Timing

B. GM Comments

I. Harmonization with California’s LEV III Program

II. Test Procedure Adjustment Due to Change in Test Fuel (R

- Factor)

III. Four Wheel Drive (4WD) Dynamometers

IV. 4WD Dynamometer Test Procedure Adjustment

V. 4WD Dynamometer Facility Impacts

VI. 10 psi RVP Tier 3 Test Fuel for Evaporative Emission Testing

VII. Evaporative Emission Phase

- in

VIII. Evaporative Emission Testing Ethanol Adjustment Factor

IX. In

- Use Compliance Criteria

X. Expansion of AECD Requirements

XI. Certifying Nationwide Early Using LEV III Vehicles

XII. Preconditioning for In

- Use Testing

XIII. Tier 3 Exhaust Emissions Certification Fuel

XIV. Regulations Governing Use of Alternative Test Fuels

XV. Tier 3 Certification Fuel RVP and Mar ketplace Fuel RVP Should both be 9

RVP during the Summer VOC Control Season

XVI. Gasoline Octane is Important for Emissions

– Certification and Market

Fuels

XVII. Alternative Certification Fuels

XVIII. Tier 3 Market Fuel Gasoline Sulfur Standards



### C. ARB Comments

###  1 mg/mi Long

- Term FTP PM Standard

 4 mg/mi US06 PM Standard

 Certification Fuel Reciprocity

D. Alliance/Global Comments

a. Exclude >8500 lbs incompletes from ORVR

b. Other topics?
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5988-5989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3206]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 97-02]


McKenna Trucking Company, Inc. v. Maersk Incorporated; Notice of 
Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint filed by McKenna Trucking Company, 
Inc. (``Complainant'') against Maersk Incorporated (``Respondent'') was 
served February 5, 1997. Complainant alleges that Respondent has 
violated sections 10(b)(1), (4), (6), (10), (11), and (12) of the 
Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. sections 1709(1), (4), (6), (10), 
(11), and (12), by receiving rebates of intermodal trucking charges, 
thereby charging, demanding, collection and receiving greater 
compensation for the transportation of property than the rates shown in 
its service contracts, and subjecting complainant to an unreasonable 
refusal to deal, while continuing to charge shippers the higher, listed 
rate as a portion of the total through rate.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on

[[Page 5989]]

the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other 
documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an 
oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development of 
an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the 
initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be 
issued by February 5, 1998, and the final decision of the Commission 
shall be issued by June 5, 1998.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3206 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Treasury approves Ohio’s plan to invest $85 million of CPF funding in multipurpose community facilities to improve resources for communities that 

enable work, education, and health monitoring.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Ohio

 

▪ Program Summary: $85 million for Multi-Purpose Community Facilities (32% of 

CPF allocation)

▪ Program Description: Ohio’s Appalachian Community

Innovation Campuses Program is a competitive grant

program that provides funding to eligible counties

within the Appalachian region to construct multi-purpose

facilities designed to increase access to education,

community health services, and workforce development

opportunities. Each campus will provide public education to students across a 

minimum of six grade levels, health services in partnership with a healthcare 

provider, and a return-to-work site with internet access.

▪ Key State Contact: Ohio Facilities Construction Commission (OFCC)

Ohio’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

Ohio estimates this 

program will fund up 

to 5 Community 

Innovation 

Campuses.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3214]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda/Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: February 11, 1997.
    Time: 12:30 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn, Room 9C-18, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857.
    Contact Person: Salvador H. Cuellar, Parklawn, Room 9C-18, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301-443-4868.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-3214 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
AAM-13-238-E 

April 19, 2013 

 Exemption No. 10302A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0581 

Mr. Dan Steiner 

President 

New Horizons Aviation, Inc. 

17229 CR 42 

Goshen, IN 46526 

Dear Mr. Steiner: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10302. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 21, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of New Horizon Aviation, Inc. (NHA) for an extension of Exemption No. 10302. 

That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Air 

Charter Services, Inc., which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

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 detrimental to NHA. 
2 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10302 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of New Horizons Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1074 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-028-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model EC225LP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: to detect a missing floor attachment screw, washer, or nut and help prevent detachment of the 

seat from the floor during an emergency landing.

Costs: There are no costs of compliance since there are no helicopters of this type design on the U.S. 

Registry.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach