alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sheinberg, Samuel I.

From:

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:14 PM

To: Walsh, Kathryn E.; Berg, Karen E.; Sheinberg, Samuel I.; Six, Anne; Musick, Vesselina
Subject: FW: Redacting Unrelated Content from 4(c) Documents

From: Whitehead, Nora <nwhitehead@ftc.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 12:14:27 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
To:

: Redacting Unrelated Content from 4(c) Documents

Yes, you may redact under the circumstances described.

(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

eS = on a oc = 4(c) Documents

We hope this email finds staff well. We have a question regarding redacting content unrelated to a proposed
transaction from otherwise responsive 4(c) documents. Based on current guidance in the PNO’s checklist, a
party may “redact unrelated information from board minutes that are responsive to Item 4(c)[.]” Further,
Informal interpretation 1908006 from August 19, 2019 states that “[m]aterial unrelated to a proposed
transaction may be redacted from responsive Board minutes (the official approved recaps of business that
occurred at a Board meeting) without a claim of privilege.” Our question is whether this guidance extends to
meeting minutes of Board Committees (as opposed to the full Board), such as a Mergers & Acquisitions
committee. In other words, may a filing party redact information unrelated to the proposed transaction from the
minutes of a Board Committee meeting, which are otherwise responsive to Item 4(c)?

We understand it is a bit last minute, but would grealty appreciate a response on Monday, if at all possible. We
plan to file on Tuesday.

Thanks in advance
#### Gerald R. NORECK, a/k/a G. R. Noreck, et al., Appellants, v. B. B. WILLS, Appellee.

No. 73-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   1,177,564,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      48,162,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           292,189,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            50,825,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              2,977,644,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,338,279,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,372,494,000
<LOANS>                                 21,881,123,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                304,223,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          31,414,058,000
<DEPOSITS>                              25,011,021,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             2,707,351,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        570,336,000
<LONG-TERM>                                445,529,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   131,623,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,548,198,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          31,414,058,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          1,837,392,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          398,427,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            40,765,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         2,276,584,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         954,782,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,097,376,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    1,179,208,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               89,663,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             498,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            901,776,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            569,667,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 382,104,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             15,425,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               397,529,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.41
<LOANS-NON>                                138,149,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                29,020,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            12,616,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           253,248,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               88,279,000
<RECOVERIES>                                32,171,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          304,223,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       304,223,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    304,223,000
        

</TABLE>
2013 10K IVC EX 10 q










Exhibit 10 (q)




Non-Employee Director Compensation
February 2014




Board Members:


Annual Retainer:                    $  60,000
    
Annual Equity Award:                $  90,000*


      *Target Value of restricted stock          
$150,000


Lead Director Fee:        $  20,000


Committee Chair Fees:


Audit                $  15,000
Compensation        $  15,000
Governance            $  10,000
Nominating            $  10,000




Meeting Fees:            $   1,500**


   **For meetings attended in excess of 24 in a year




Initial Equity Grant:


Number of restricted shares equal to $150,000 divided by closing price of Company's stock on the date of election to the Board
Order filed August 2, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-21-00157-CV

____________

THE STATE OF TEXAS BY AND THROUGH THE TEXAS 

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellant

V.

AHMAD SULEIMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLUMBIA STOP, LLC, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 107226-CV

____________

NO. 14-21-00238-CV

____________

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS BY AND THROUGH THE TEXAS 

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Relator
2

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

239th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 107226-CV

ORDER

On March 23, 2021, the State of Texas by and through the Texas 

Transportation Commission (“the State”) filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s order signed March 4, 2021, denying the State’s motion to dismiss for want 

of jurisdiction. The State’s appeal was assigned to this Court under our appellate 

number 14-21-00157-CV.

On May 6, 2021, the State filed a petition for writ of mandamus “[o]ut of an 

abundance of caution, and strictly in the alternative,” complaining of the trial 

court’s order signed February 8, 2021, denying the State’s motion to abate in the 

same trial court cause number at issue in the State’s interlocutory appeal. The 

original proceeding has been assigned our case number 14-21-00238-CV. 

Today, the Court, on its own motion, ORDERS CONSOLIDATION of the 

appeal and the original proceeding, Nos. 14-21-00157-CV and 14-21-00238-CV. 

We further ORDER Ahmed Sulieman, Individually and Columbia Stop, 

LLC’s motion to abate mandamus proceedings DENIED. The petition for a writ 

of mandamus remains pending.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain. (Justice Spain dissents and 

would dismiss for lack of a proper original-proceeding record.).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4677]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-51-004]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Filing

February 20, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 14, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing its compliance filing to report 
the operating experience under Rate Schedule GPS (Gas Parking Service) 
for the twelve months ended December 31, 1996 in compliance with 
Ordering Paragraph (D) of the Commission's Order dated June 4, 1996 in 
Docket No. RP96-51-000, 75 FERC para. 61,255 (1996).
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
parties to the proceedings in Docket No. RP96-51-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before February 27, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4677 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME 

Ardagh Group S.A., et al. 

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

009356 

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in 

proceeding the appearance of 

D counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

D counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1:81 counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding, 

Thomas Butler (Partner) 

thomas.butler@leclairryan.com 

LeCiairRyan, a PC 

885 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Phone Number: 212-634-5033 

Fax Number: 212-986-3809 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 

(Thomas E. Butler) 

2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being fi led. 

Thomas Butler 

Pemod Ricard USA LLC 

250 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10177 

Phone Number 212-372-5400 

5. DATE SIGNED 

12/6/2013 

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580
#### John GEORGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 20, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
EX-10.55



 EXHIBIT 10.55 

SUMMARY OF ATHERSYS, INC. 
 2014
CASH BONUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 On January 17, 2014, the Board of Directors of Athersys, Inc. (the “Company”), upon the recommendation of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, approved a cash bonus incentive plan (the “Plan”) for the year ended December 31, 2014 for the named executive officers of the Company. The Plan provides that each
participant is eligible to earn a bonus during the award term of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. The Plan provides for the following target bonus percentages of the named executive officer’s salary during the award term,
weighted as set forth below on the achievement of specified corporate goals, with the remainder based on individual/functional performance. The corporate goals include advancing the Company’s clinical programs for MultiStem, executing against
the established operating plan and capital acquisition objectives, and advancement of strategic partnership and program activities. There is no formally adopted plan document for the Plan. 

 

									
	 Title
	  	Target
Bonus	 	 	Weighting on
Corporate Goals	 
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	60	% 	 	 	100	% 
	 President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	 	45	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Executive Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer
	  	 	45	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Executive Vice President, Regenerative Medicine
	  	 	40	% 	 	 	60	% 
	 Vice President of Finance
	  	 	30	% 	 	 	60	%
No. 11010.

#### The State of Ohio *v.*Marsh.

Decided June 23, 1908:

Exceptions to the Court *451of Common Pleas of Marion county.

*Mr. John H. Clark,*prosecuting attorney; *Mr. Wade H. Ellis,*attorney-general, and *Mr. Clarence D. Laylin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Mouser & Quigley*and *Messrs. Scoñeld, Durfee & Scofield,*for defendant in error.

Exceptions overruled.

Price, C. J., Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          97,038
<SECURITIES>                                   251,994
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,044,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,593,545
<PP&E>                                       5,546,196
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,491,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,659,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,966,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,688,605
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,659,470
<SALES>                                      2,822,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,914,458
<CGS>                                        1,859,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  686,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                260,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                    98,856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CertificationFurnished Pursuant to 

18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Financial Corporation (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November, 2007 (the “Report”), theundersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that: 

 
    -  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
    -  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

 

 

|                  |   |                                                                                   |
|-----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |
| By:    |   | /s/ David W. Mann                                                                      |
|                  |   | David W. Mann

Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer

November 14, 2008 |

 

 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FirstFinancial Corporation and will be retained by First Financial Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

 

 

16

----
# FILED
January 13, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON
AUBREY M.

BRIGANCE, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9709-CR-00342 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-16907 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R
This matter is before the court upon the state's m otion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crimi nal Appeals, to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order rather than formal opinion. On December 4, 1978 , the petitioner pled guilty to first degree burglary and

was sentenced to five y ears imprisonment. No appeal was taken. On May 7, 1996, the petitione r filed a petition for post-con viction relief alleg ing an involuntary guil

ty plea and ineffective assi stance of counsel. Finding t hat the statute of limitations ha d expired, the tria l court dismissed the petition with out a hearing.

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), a person in custody under a sente nce of a court of this state must petiti on for post-conviction r elief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state app ellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, withi n one year of the date on whic h judgment became final. The Post-Conviction Proc

edure Act provides sev eral limited exceptions

to the one-year statute of limitations, howev er, none of them are applicable to th e present case. See § 40-30-202(b).

Judgment in this case became final on December 4, 1978, and the petitioner did not file his petition for post-convict ion relief until May 7, 1996. Accordingly, his petition is clearly barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner, citing State v. Carter , 952 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1997) (holding that the 1995 PostConviction Procedure A ct did not revive c

laims barred by the prev ious statute of2

limitations), acknowledges this fact in his br ief and states that the issue is raised on appeal in order to preserve other rights and remedies which may be available to him in the future.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court d id not err in dismissi ng the petitioner’s petition for pos t-conviction relie

f. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED t hat state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is af firmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of Januar y, 1998.

_________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

_________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

_________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E
No. 10267.

#### Kiser et al. *v.*Seeman et al.

Decided March 24, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. Thomas E. Powell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Arnold, Morton & Irvine,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Sharlon Denise Williams, * From the 50th District

Court of Baylor County,

Trial Court No. 5498.

Vs. No. 11-15-00117-CR * June 25, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
* 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

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10908

Summary Calendar

 

WALTER P. LAZDOWSKI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CV-118

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Walter P. Lazdowski filed suit against his former employer

to seek redress for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The district court dismissed his suit, and this appeal ensued. 

Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in granting the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his retaliation

claims, which sought relief for acts that occurred in 2002. 

Lazdowski has not shown that the district court erred in
No. 04-10908

-2-

dismissing these claims, as he has not established that he was

subjected to an adverse employment action that was meant to

retaliate against him for engaging in protected activity. See

Messer v. Meno, 130 F.3d 130, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Lazdowski likewise has not shown that the district court

erred in determining that his claims that related to events that

occurred in 1997 were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

To the extent that Lazdowski contends that the district court

lacked the authority to raise this doctrine sua sponte, he is

wrong. See Carbonell v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Human

Resources, 772 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 1985). To the extent that

Lazdowski argues that the district court erred in determining

that his 1997 claims should be dismissed because they arose from

the same nucleus of operative facts as the claim asserted in his

2000 suit, he is likewise wrong. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. St.

Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La., Inc., 37 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir.

1994). 

Lazdowski has shown no error in the judgment of the district

court. Consequently, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2019

No. 04-19-00366-CR

April OROSCO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR5505

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On October 18, 2019, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as 

counsel and an amended brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he 

asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

After reviewing counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief, we conclude counsel has not

fully complied with Kelly v. State because there is no indication counsel has informed his client 

of her pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court declare appellant’s appeal 

frivolous. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant’s counsel file a response indicating he has 

complied with the above Kelly requirements by December 2, 2019.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Billy T. LAMBERT.

No. 62568.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 7, 1978.

In re: Billy T. Lambert applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Caddo.

Denied.
No. 10577.

#### Sprankle *v.*Sprankle, Jr., et al.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. C. A. Schwab*and *Mr. Walter C. Ong,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Hogan, McMillin & Pattis on; Messrs. Goulder, Holding & Masten*and *Mr. Wallace I. Knight,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sitauck, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.