alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PacifiCorp 12.31.13 EX 10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1
SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH PACIFICORP'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS 


PacifiCorp's named executive officers (other than its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Greg Abel) and its other employee directors each receive an annual salary and participate in health insurance and other benefit plans on the same basis as other employees, as well as certain other compensation and benefit plans described in PacifiCorp's Annual Report on Form 10-K. Mr. Abel is employed by PacifiCorp's parent company, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company ("MEHC") and is not directly compensated by PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp reimburses MEHC for the cost of Mr. Abel's time spent on PacifiCorp matters, including compensation paid to him by MEHC, pursuant to an intercompany administrative services agreement among MEHC and its subsidiaries. 


The named executive officers and directors are also eligible to receive a cash incentive award under PacifiCorp's Annual Incentive Plan ("AIP"). The AIP provides for a discretionary annual cash award that is determined on a subjective basis and paid in December. In addition to the AIP, the named executive officers are eligible to receive discretionary cash performance awards periodically during the year to reward the accomplishment of significant non-recurring tasks or projects. The named executive officers and directors are participants in MEHC's Long-Term Incentive Partnership Plan ("LTIP"). A copy of the LTIP is attached as Exhibit 10.9 to the MEHC Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and incorporated by reference herein. 


Base salary for named executive officers and employee directors for PacifiCorp's fiscal year ending December 31, 2014 (excluding Mr. Abel) is shown in the following table:


	
					
	Name and Title
	 
	Base Salary

	 
	 
	 

	Douglas K. Stuver
	 
	$
	252,000
	


	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	A. Richard Walje
	 
	378,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Rocky Mountain Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	R. Patrick Reiten
	 
	320,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Power
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Micheal G. Dunn
	 
	320,000
	


	President and Chief Executive Officer, PacifiCorp Energy
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Brent E. Gale
	 
	308,000
	


	Director
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Natalie L. Hocken
	 
	229,500
	


	Director
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Mark C. Moench(1)
	 
	239,000
	


	Director
	 
	 






		
	(1) 
	Mr. Moench retired as a director and employee of PacifiCorp effective February 2014.




Messrs. Walje, Reiten, Dunn, Gale and Moench and Ms. Hocken are directors of PacifiCorp, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of PacifiCorp. Messrs. Abel, Anderson and Goodman are employees of MEHC, but do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors other than what they receive as employees of MEHC.
#### Oyler, Admr., *v.*Chicago & Erie Rd. Co.

*Negligence*— Wilful *and wanton*— Charge *to jury*— Written *requests before argument*— Plaintiff's *negligence as defense.*

(No. 18152

Decided March 11, 1924.)

Certified by the Court of Appeals of Hardin county.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Messrs. Henderson & Roof,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Mahon & Mahon*and *Messrs. Cook, McGowan, Foote, Bushnell & Lamb,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

A careful examination of the record in this case discloses that it presents a controversy in all essential respects identical with the case of *Payne, Director Gen. of Railroads,*v. *Vance,*103 Ohio St., 59, 133 N. E., 85. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in the instant case must therefore be affirmed upon the authority of that case.

*552*We*feel, however, that, inasmuch as this case must be remanded to the trial court for a new trial, some notice should be taken of defendant’s requests to charge, five in number, presented at the hearing of the case in the trial court. Without taking the time to discuss them in detail, it is sufficient to say that we approve as sound propositions of law Nos. 1, 3 and 4. We disapprove charge No. 2, and feel that if charges 1, 3 and 4 are given by the trial court at the new trial of this cause No. 5 should be omitted, if for no other reason than that it is a repetition of matters contained in the other, approved charges, . .

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias. Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6048

FRIEL MONROE HAWKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID MITCHELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-04-204-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Friel Monroe Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Friel Monroe Hawks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are debatable

or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hawks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4346]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Application

    Pursuant to Sec. 1301.43(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 13, 1997, Noramco of 
Delaware, Inc., Division of McNeilab, Inc., 500 Old Swedes Landing 
Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, made application by renewal to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morphine (9300)............................  II                         
Codeine (9050).............................  II                         
Thebaine (9333)............................  II                         
Hydrocodone (9193).........................  II                         
Oxycodone (9143)...........................  II                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for 
distribution to its customers as bulk product.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the above application.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than April 22, 1997.

    Dated: February 6, 1997.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-4346 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### Isaac ARTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 14, 1973.

Isaac Artis, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having- been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21
                                   ----------



          Subsidiaries of VIMRx Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the "Registrant")


                                                  State or Jurisdiction of
                                                  Incorporation or Organization
           Name(1)
Innovir Laboratories, Inc.(2)                     Delaware
   VIMRx Holdings, Ltd.(3)                        Delaware
     VPI (UK) Ltd.(4)                             United Kingdom
     VPI Gesselschaft fur die Entwicklung und     Federal Republic of Germany
     Synthese von Oligomeren GmbH(4)
     Ribonetics GmbH Gesselschaft fur molekulare  Federal Republic of Germany
     Therapie(4)
VIMRx Genomics, Ltd.(5)                           Delaware
Cambes, Ltd.(6)                                   Delaware



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

         (1)      Each listed subsidiary does business under the name indicated.
         (2)      Approximately 68%-owned by the Registrant.
         (3)      100%-owned by Innovir Laboratories, Inc.
         (4)      100%-owned by VIMRx Holdings, Ltd.
         (5)      90%-owned by the Registrant.
         (6)            Controlled  by the  Registrant  through the ownership of
                        all  outstanding  shares of voting  preferred  stock and
                        one-third of the outstanding shares of common stock.


<PAGE>
City Managt~r 

JOL C. THOMAS 

City Attol'ney 

DAVID F. RICHARDS 

Post omc~ Box 760 

Clovis. N~:w Mexico 

88!01-0760 

Phone (575) 769-7828 

October 5, 2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Essential Air Service Division. X-53 

Room 6401 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington. DC 20590 

CLOVIS CITY COMMISSION 

!\iavor 

DAVID L~NSFORD 

;\lay or Pro-Tem 

LEN VOHS 

Commissioners 

CHRIS BRYANT 

DANIEL J. STODDARD 

FIDEL MADRID 

JUAN F GARZA 

ROBERT SANDOVAL 

SANDRA TAYLOR-SAWYER 

RANDAL S CROWDER 

r--..,~~ 

'c_::.~-

n 

v 

·-·------ '. 

~i~ :st~~ ::j~) 

RE: Recommendation Docket OST # 1996~ 1902 for EAS Funding- Clovis, New Mexico 

Dear Mr. DeVany 

The Clovis City Commission at its regular meeting of October 4, 20!2 reviewed the recommendation 

from the Civil Aviation Board on proposals and formal presentations made by both Great Lakes and 

Seaport Airlines. Tbe Clovis Commission voted by a vote of 4 to 3 to recommend Great Lakes 

Airlines to Continue Service to Clovis with the route proposed from Clovis to Santa Fe to Denver 

International. 

Please accept this letter on behalf of the City of Clovis as a recommendation for Great Lakes Airlines 

under DOT- OST- 1996- 1902. 

Sincerely, 

David Lansford 

Mayor 

Cc: Mr. Brian Swanson, USDOT EAS 

Mr. Chuck HowelL Great Lakes Airlines 

Mr. Rob McKinney. SeaPort Airlines
#### Boast LASTER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1971.

Thomas N. Balikes, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of rape in 1964. Pursuant to motion, an appeal under the authority of Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239 has been permitted from the final judgment and is the subject matter of these proceedings. The appellant contends that the trial court committed error in permitting into evidence the introduction of certain incriminating statements allegedly made, in violation of his United States constitutional rights in that said statements failed to meet the test laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. We affirm.

At the time of the trial, the trial judge made a full examination as to the volun-tariness of the appellant’s extra-judicial confession, which is fully supported in the record and was consistent with the authority applicable at the time of trial. See: Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479; Dawson v. State, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 408; Montgomery v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 331; Moffett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 *30So.2d 408; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. Further, it has been clearly held that Miranda v. Arizona, supra, is not to be applied retroactively. Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 790; Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the verdict, final judgment and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmd.

Affirmed.
.. i If) ,¿~ \i tj "'" ,,,.


O. '\ 0\ G~ ~ f~~~ A~J,,

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION ," 

OFFCE OF ADMINSTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
 

) 

il the Matter of ) 

) 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Docket No. 9327 

Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER REQilRING EXPEDITED BRIEFING
 

On Friday, September 25,2009, Respondent submitted a motion to reopen the hearing 

record to permit the introduction of new and additional evidence at a half day hearing. 

Complaint Counsel is hereby directed to fie a response to this motion by 5:00 p.m., October 1, 

2009. 

ORDERED: JM ~ 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: September 28, 2009
No. 10269.

#### Bayer *v.*Machlite.

Decided February 25, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Messrs. Gumble & Gumble,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Harley M. Snyder*and *Mr. Jesse W. Snider,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spiauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
y

Xβε

yX

βε

I

n

I

n

y

εψ

ψ

β
ε I

βˆ X Ψ X X Ψ y

Ψ

Ψ

Ψ

V

y x x βˆ V Ψ y X βˆ

βˆ

y x

y x

y x y

Ψ V Ψ V x V Ψ X

X Ψ X x X Ψ V
Ψˆ

Ψˆ

ΨˆyΨΨ

ΨˆΨˆΨΨˆ

Ψˆ
βˆ

xy

R

yx
Corrected Prediction Limits

Watson et al. Prediction Limits

10/1/05 2/1/06 6/1/06 10/1/06 2/1/07 6/1/07

−0.2 0 0.2 0.4

Post−Treamtent Innovations

Post−Treatment Time Period

y

x y Ψ

y x

y Ψˆ

Ψ

y Ψˆ y y Ψ y y Ψˆ y Ψ

y Ψˆ

y Ψˆ y y Ψ y

y Ψˆ y Ψ

Ψˆ Ψ

y Ψ y

y Ψˆ y y Ψˆ y Ψ
y

Ψˆy

yΨy

ΨˆΨˆ

ΨˆΨˆ

yΨˆyΨΨˆ

yΨΨΨˆ

Ψˆ

Ψ

ΨˆΨˆ
Copyright of Hydrological Sciences Journal/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques is the property of Taylor &

Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7381 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7381

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to include a penalty for the 
  destruction of a memorial of a constitutional leader, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2020

  Mr. Banks (for himself, Mr. Roy, Mr. Budd, and Mr. Bishop of North 
  Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to include a penalty for the 
  destruction of a memorial of a constitutional leader, 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. DESTRUCTION OF VETERANS, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR 
              SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE MEMORIALS.

    Section 1369 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the section heading by striking ``veterans''' and 
        inserting ``veterans, presidents of the united states, or 
        signers of the declaration of independence''; and
            (2) in subsection (a) by inserting ``, a person or persons 
        who signed the Declaration of Independence, or a President of 
        the United States'' after ``United States''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7176 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7176

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve dependent coverage 
     under the TRICARE Young Adult Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2020

  Mrs. Luria introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve dependent coverage 
     under the TRICARE Young Adult Program, 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 ``Health Care Fairness for Military 
Families Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO DEPENDENT COVERAGE UNDER TRICARE YOUNG ADULT 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Expansion of Eligibility.--Section 1110b of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended in subsection (b)--
            (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (3) and (4), respectively.
    (b) Elimination of Separate Premium for a Young Adult.--Section 
1110b of such title is further amended by striking subsection (c).
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1075(c)(3) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``section 1076d, 1076e, or 1110b'' 
and inserting ``section 1076d or 1076e''.
    (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to determinations of dependency (and related 
determinations of premiums) under the TRICARE program pursuant to 
section 1110b of title 10, United States Code, made on or after January 
1, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,633,226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,156,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,300,000
<INVENTORY>                                 35,042,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            77,942,760
<PP&E>                                      27,264,608
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,718,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             120,033,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,014,155
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,784,725
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,240,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,024,919
<SALES>                                    174,506,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       74,644,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              159,809,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               368,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,562,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,135,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,975,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,160,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,160,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 72

  To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
  Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' shall 
                        have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

  Mr. Biggs (for himself and Mr. Schweikert) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
  Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' shall 
                        have no force or effect.

    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 ``Let Lenders Lend Act''.

SEC. 2. HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE RULE.

    The final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection titled ``Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)'' (October 
28, 2015; 80 Fed. Reg. 66128) shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
No. 72-6262.

#### Harvey *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.