alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MEAD v. TAYLOR.

No. 35728.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 189 So.2d 204.
#### OLINS RENT A CAR, INC., and Pan American Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Raymond J. HEBERT, Appellee.

No. 73-842.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
(This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,410
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             201
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0  
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     72,743
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          36,722
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            37,356
<LOANS>                                        918,510
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,929
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,096,441
<DEPOSITS>                                     676,236
<SHORT-TERM>                                    85,968
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,547
<LONG-TERM>                                    237,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,096,441
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 48,772
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,776
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,548
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,786
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,456
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,092
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,187
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,446
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,446
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.22
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,014
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   214
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,600
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      195
<RECOVERIES>                                       337
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,929
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          7,929
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.33
​
SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
​
Non-employee directors of the Board receive a mix of cash and equity-based compensation. Directors who are employees or officers of the Company do not receive any additional compensation for Board service. The Company reimburses expenses associated with attendance at Board meetings for all directors. The Company does not provide any perquisites to its non-employee directors.
​
The following table sets forth the compensation program for non-employee directors effective in fiscal year 2022.
	

	


	Annual cash retainer:
	($)

	●Board

	85,000

	Additional annual cash retainers:
	​

	●Lead Director

	50,000

	●Audit Committee Chair

	25,000

	●Compensation Committee Chair

	22,500

	●Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair

	15,000

	Annual grant of restricted stock units (grant date fair value)
	130,000



​
Cash compensation is generally paid quarterly in advance of the regularly scheduled meetings. 
​
The restricted stock units are granted annually, generally during the first quarter of each fiscal year. Such restricted stock units vest in full on the first anniversary of the grant date (or earlier in the event of termination of the director by the Company without cause or within one year following a change in control), subject to the director’s continued service to the Company through such vesting date, and are settled in shares of the Company’s common stock within thirty days following the vesting date. Any newly appointed or elected non-employee director will be granted a pro rata portion of the restricted stock units as of the date of initial appointment.
#### Gary W. WILLIS v. Kenneth G. EVERETT et al.

No. 62836.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Beauregard Parish Police Jury, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Beauregard. 359 So.2d 1080.

Writ denied.
#### Willie Lee MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order of the trial court revoking appellant’s probation. See *Thomas v. State,*317 So.2d 450 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). However, we agree with appellant that there are imperfections in his sentence. The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit for time served as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), requires. *Brooks*v. *State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *Brooks v. State, supra.*We remand the case for correction of sentence, and appellant need not be present at that time.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1333 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1333

   To reinstate funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2013

 Mr. Begich (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Casey, and Mr. 
    Nelson) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reinstate funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan 
                                program.

    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 ``Increased Competition for Consumers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FUNDING FOR THE CONSUMER OPERATED AND ORIENTED 
              PLAN PROGRAM.

    (a) Transfer of Funds.--The unobligated balance of the funds 
transferred under subsection (b)(1) of section 644 of the American 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (42 U.S.C. 18042 note) to the fund 
established under subsection (a) of such section shall be transferred 
to the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program established under 
section 1322 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 
U.S.C. 18042) to remain available until expended.
    (b) Appropriations.--Section 1322 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18042) is amended by striking subsection 
(g) and inserting the following:
    ``(g) Appropriations.--There are hereby appropriated the amount 
equal to the amount rescinded under section 644(b)(2) of the American 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.''.
    (c) Time for Awarding Loans and Grants.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1322(b)(2) of the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18042(b)(2)) is 
        amended by striking subparagraph (D).
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect as if enacted as part of the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148).
                                 <all>
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138514

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138514 COA: 279519 Wayne CC: 07-007120-01 MARCELLUS LAMER GREEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 12, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        STATE OR OTHER
                                                                         JURISDICTION
               CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP                              OF INCORPORATION

<S>                                                                    <C>
              Baytown Medical Center, Inc.
            (d/b/a BayCoast Medical Center)                                   TX

             Lancaster Hospital Corporation
          (d/b/a Lancaster Community Hospital)                                CA

               Metropolitan Hospital, LP
             (d/b/a Capitol Medical Center)                                   VA

         Paracelsus Clay County Hospital, Inc.
          (d/b/a Cumberland River Hospital)                                   CA

   Paracelsus Fentress County General Hospital, Inc.
        (d/b/a Fentress County General Hospital)                              CA

Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation of North Dakota, Inc.
        (d/b/a Dakota Heartland Health System)                                ND

          Paracelsus Healthcare Holdings, Inc.                                DE

      Paracelsus Macon County Medical Center, Inc.
         (d/b/a Flint River Community Hospital)                               CA

        Paracelsus Medical Building Corporation                               CA

           Paracelsus Mesquite Hospital, Inc.
         (d/b/a The Medical Center of Mesquite)                               TX

              Paracelsus of Virginia, Inc.                                    VA

           Paracelsus Real Estate Corporation                                 CA

       Paracelsus Santa Rosa Medical Center, Inc.
           (d/b/a Santa Rosa Medical Center)                                  CA

                  PHC Funding Corp. II                                        CA

                 PHC-B of Midland, Inc.
            (d/b/a Westwood Medical Center)                                   TX

                 PHC/CHC Holdings, Inc.                                       DE
                   (d/b/a Paracelsus)
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to said statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         217,906
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               492,301
<PP&E>                                         11,242,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,073,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,910,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          395,035
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,938,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,910,861
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,189,322
<CGS>                                          716,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,078,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             456,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (50,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (50,566)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.98)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.01

                          CERTIFICATION OF 10-Q REPORT

                                       OF

                     BIRNER DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

                  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003

1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. This Certification
         is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
         Certification accompanies the 10-Q Report of Birner Dental Management
         Services, Inc. for the quarter and nine months ended September 30,
         2003.

2.       We certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
         that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of Birner Dental Management Services, Inc.

                         This Certification is executed as of November 12, 2003.

                                     By:    /s/ Frederic W.J. Birner
                                            ------------------------------------
                                   Name:    Frederic W.J. Birner
                                  Title:    Chairman of the Board,
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)



                                     By:    /s/ Dennis N. Genty
                                            ------------------------------------
                                   Name:    Dennis N. Genty
                                  Title:    Chief Financial Officer, Secretary,
                                            Treasurer and Director
                                            (Principal Financial and
                                            Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that
appear in the typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Birner Dental Management Services,
Inc. and will be retained by Birner Dental Management Services, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       1
1 The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 99-1059NE

_____________ Donald H. Davis, Jr., * * Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the District of * Nebraska. Officer Frank Laskley; Office r * Jacque Points, * [Not To Be Published] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 2000 Filed: June 14, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Donald H. Davis appeals the District Court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) motion for a new trial, which Davis had sought on grounds that the District Court wrongly excluded certain evidence. To the extent we are able to review Davis’s arguments on appeal without a trial transcript, see Fed. R. App. P 10(b)(1)(A) (appellant must order transcript); 8th Cir. R. 30A(b)(5) (same); Schmid v. United Bhd.-2-

of Carpenters , 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (plaintiff’s failure to provide complete transcript renders it impossible to review evidence presented at trial), we conclude that no legal error resulting in a miscarriage of justice occurred at Davis’s trial. Thus, the Court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial, see Gray v. Bicknell , 86 F.3d 1472, 1480 (8th Cir. 1996) (authority to grant new trial is within discretion of trial court). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Horace CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-477.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1974.

*348Hacker & Phelps, Miami, for appellant.

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

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was informed against for unlawful possession of blank, stolen, or counterfeit driver’s licenses [in violation of Fla.Stat. § 322.212(1), F.S.A.], was tried non-jury, found guilty and sentenced to six months in the Dade County Jail, plus a one (1) year period of probation thereafter.

On appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress (the blank driver’s licenses) on the grounds that the search warrant authorized the seizure of gambling paraphernalia only. We disagree.

The police officers, armed with a valid search warrant, were lawfully on the premises. We find the search in the case sub judice was lawful and continuous and the fruits thereof [i. e. the blank driver’s licenses] were admissible. See Partin v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So.2d 847.

We have considered also appellant’s second point on appeal and find that to be lacking in merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction, but we find error in the sentence in the respect set out below.

No contention of invalidity of the sentence was argued in the brief. However, we regard an illegal sentence, or illegal part of a sentence, where it appears on appeal to be a matter within the scope of appellate review pursuant to FAR 6.16, 32 F.S.A., which provides in part: “The court may also in its discretion, if it deems the interests of justice to require, review any other things said or done in the cause which appear in the appeal record, including instructions to the jury.”

Here the portion of the sentence which made provision for probation for a one (1) year period, to follow after the serving of the six months in the county jail, was unauthorized and improper for the reasons set out in Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 280 So.2d 518. In Williams it was pointed out that the authority granted by Fla.Stat. § 948.01(4), F.S.A. to add a period of probation to be combined with a jail sentence was to provide for the defendant to be placed on probation “upon completion of any specified period of such sentence.” Thus, for example, where a court in sentencing a defendant to imprisonment for a designated period in the county jail provides that after serving a stated portion of that designated period, defendant shall be on probation for *349some period, the penalty for a violation of probation would call for return of the de- ■ fendant to the county jail for the unserved balance of the jail sentence, or such part thereof as the court should determine. The statute did not make provision for. adding a period of probation to follow service of the term [in the instant case six months] for which the defendant was committed to the county jail.

The judgment is affirmed. The sentence is modified to eliminate therefrom the provision for probation.

It is so ordered.
#### Nathan GOTTESMAN as Executor of the Estate of Sam Gottesman, Deceased v. Clara GOTTESMAN a/k/a Clara Dauer.

No. 38679.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 221 So.2d 212.
> Bourry = east goonies Q
Tomlin oft ort oMton oF 5 pal Aged

et rear darti

AWE, oF INSTITUTION

jamendii-sneadr rim reinaue.
FourreeNti.0 (SUS OF THE UNITED. ‘STATES: 19 0 20PU!
rene

Wie oF wcondgrareo mace.

emusons arnt No. YS
27°}

[exocemor oemer no

Loe — ee ‘oF erry

6e04

Visi =

rena nentnn rn ST amen sien

_ ewonenaron JJ
T

—
4

!

ese

geecesessss

— bee)

records are mai

isit http://www.archives.gov for

by the Nation:

information a

bout publ

jal Archives and Records Admit

licly available record

ra)

s like the one shown

inistration, not the U.’

S. Census Bur

here.

RisRRRS

Esl

REE RSI

Sa SSeSSe5R8888

RERRERER

ial

EF RIERE

id

Pgiels

7
#### In re ESTATE of Leah M. McCONAHA, Deceased.

No. 1249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 19, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.