alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


ANNUAL DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


On  July 26, 2005, in connection with its
review of the compensation arrangements of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.
(the “Company”), the Compensation Committee engaged an independent compensation
consultant to perform a survey of director compensation practices at companies
in the Company’s peer group.  This survey
found that compensation for lead directors and committee chairpersons, as well
as annual retainers, had increased throughout the peer group. On that basis,
the Board of Directors determined to increase lead director, committee
chairperson and annual fee compensation, and accordingly approved the following
compensation arrangements for non-employee directors of the Company:


	
  Board of
  Directors:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board of Directors Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50,000

  	
   

  
	
  Board of Directors Quarterly Meeting Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  
	
  Board of Directors Annual Option Award

  	
   

  	
  11,250

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director and
  Committee Service:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50,000

  	
   

  
	
  Committee Membership Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit Committee Chair Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation Committee Chair Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
  Nominating and
  Governance Committee Chair Annual Fee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby Glen STEPHENS.

No. 89-KK-0658.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Stephens, Bobby Glen; — Defendants); applying for writ of supervisory, remedial and review; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 142274; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20901-KW.

Denied.
Order entered May 1, 2020 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00409-CV 

IN RE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF E.P., Relator 

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MI-20-00463 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Burns and Justices Molberg and Evans 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s March 30, 

2020 petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

 JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF ASSETS & LIABILITIES; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846581
<NAME> THE PRUDENTIAL VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      58,578,848
<SECURITIES>                                14,950,525
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                    66,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           170,552,624
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             244,249,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,088,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 240,160,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               244,249,272
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,163,552
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,330,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,833,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/09 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
SFBC International - Exhibit 10.6






Exhibit 10.6




Annual Bonus Plan

Adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of

SFBC International, Inc. 

On

May 12, 2005










For the 12-month period beginning April 1, 2005, the maximum annual bonus payable to Drs. Krinsky and Holmes and Messrs. Hantman and Natan shall be 100% of their respective base salaries. The annual bonus shall be comprised of the following five components with the maximum amount payable under each component equal to 20% of the executive’s base salary, based upon the attainment of agreed upon targets:




1.

Revenue;  

2.

Net income;

3.

Earnings per share;

4.

Stock price; and 

5.

Operational goals
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 86

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a commemorative

postage stamp honoring the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units, collectively known as the Buffalo Soldiers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 29, 2000

Mr. DEWINE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Requesting that the United States Postal Service issue a

commemorative postage stamp honoring the 9th and

10th Horse Cavalry Units, collectively known as the Buffalo Soldiers.

Whereas the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units, collectively

known as the Buffalo Soldiers, have made key contributions to the history of the United States by fighting to

defend and protect our Nation;

Whereas the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units maintained

the trails and protected the settler communities during

the period of westward expansion;

Whereas the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units, who came

to be known as the Buffalo Soldiers while in combat with
2

•SCON 86 IS

the Native Americans, secured land for the Union from

the Native Americans;

Whereas the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units were among

Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders in Cuba during the

Spanish-American War, and crossed into Mexico in 1916

under General John J. Pershing;

Whereas African-American men were drafted into the 9th

and 10th Horse Cavalry Units to serve on harsh terrain

and protect the Mexican Border;

Whereas these African-American units went to North Africa,

Iran, and Italy during World War II and worked in many

positions including paratroopers and combat engineers;

Whereas in the face of fear of a Japanese invasion, the soldiers in the 9th and 10th Cavalry units were placed along

the rugged border terrain of the Baja Peninsula and protected dams, power stations, and rail lines that were crucial to San Diego’s war industries; and

Whereas the 21 currently existing chapters of the 9th and

10th Cavalry Association, with 20 domestic chapters and

1 in Germany, have built a Buffalo Soldiers Memorial in

Junction City, Kansas: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress requests that the United

3 States Postal Service issue a commemorative postage

4 stamp in honor of the 9th and 10th Horse Cavalry Units,

5 collectively known as the Buffalo Solders.

Æ
S. J. Res. 40

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Joint Resolution

Providing for the appointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of the Board

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of resignation of Louis Gerstner of New York,

is filled by the appointment of Alan G. Spoon of Maryland. The

appointment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect on

the date of enactment of this joint resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1252
In re: CURTIS WATSON, a/k/a Low , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2:18

- cr - 00279

- 1 )

Submitted : June 2 9, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Curtis Watson , Petitioner Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Watson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to conduct a hearing and release him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b) . We conclude that Watson is not entitled to m andamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic re medy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted ). M andamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). In the district court, Watson filed a pro se 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b) motion for release on bail making the same argument as he does in his present petition. The district court denied his motion because he was repres ented by counsel. B ecause Watson’s petition functionally seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for release on bail,
t he relief sought by Watson is not available by way of mandamus. See In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d at 353

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DENIED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# AGENCY:

U.S. Department of Education.

# ACTION:

Notice; Advisory Committee Meeting Cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Education gives notice of the cancellation of the Meeting of the Equity and Excellence Commission scheduled for March 29, 2012 and announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 14, 2012 in Vol. 77 No. 50.                    

The meeting will be rescheduled for a date to be announced in the future.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jim Eichner, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. Email:                         *equitycommission@ed.gov.*                         Telephone: (202) 453-5945.                    

Sandra Battle,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Office for Civil Rights.

[FR Doc. 2012-7376 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
#### John R. LEVINESS and Ella Mae Leviness v. George A. PERRY M.D., et al.

No. 89-CC-1851.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Perry, George A. M.D.; — Defendant/s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 89CA-0521; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. B , No. 87-1545.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HAYWARD EVANS, § 

§ No. 636, 2015

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 0111010136

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: December 18, 2015

Decided: February 19, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER

This 19th day of February 2016, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Hayward Evans, is an inmate incarcerated in a 

Delaware correctional facility. On November 24, 2015, the Court received Evans’ 

notice of appeal from a Superior Court order docketed on October 21, 2015, 

dismissing his motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred.1

 Under 

Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv), the notice of appeal should have been filed on or 

before November 20, 2015.

2

 1 State v. Evans, 2015 WL 6437721 (Del. Super. Oct. 21, 2015).

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iv) (providing that an appeal from a proceeding for postconviction relief 

must be filed within thirty days after entry upon the docket of the judgment sought to be 

reviewed).
2

(2) On December 8, 2015, the Clerk issued a notice directing Evans to 

show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.3

 Evans has 

filed a response, explaining that he was under the impression that counsel would be 

appointed to assist him in filing the appeal. Evans contends that he was unable to 

prepare the necessary appeal papers within the thirty-day appeal period.

(3) In Delaware, “[t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement.”4

 “[T]he 

appellate jurisdiction of this [C]ourt rests wholly upon the perfecting of an appeal 

within the period of limitations fixed by law.”5

 The jurisdictional defect created by 

the untimely filing of an appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can 

demonstrate that the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to court-related 

personnel.6

 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse the failure to comply 

strictly with the jurisdictional requirements for filing a notice of appeal.7

 

(4) The record does not reflect that Evan’s failure to file a timely appeal 

is attributable to court-related personnel. This case does not fall within the 

exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.

 3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (governing involuntary dismissal upon notice of the Court).

4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 5 Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971).

6 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

7 Carter v. State, 2013 WL 5974913 (Del. Nov. 8, 2013) (citing Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 

(Del. 1989)).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

6(a)(iv) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice
#### Linda Blount JACKSON v. Russell B. JACKSON.

No. 89-CC-0268.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1989.

In re Jackson, Russell B.; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW88 1989; Parish of East Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge Family Court, Div. “A”, No. 62996.

Writ denied.
#### Jessie J. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 19, 1987.

*55Jessie J. Henderson, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for post-conviction relief.

For the second time appellant appeals the denial of his 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion because the trial judge refused to give him a hearing on his motion. This court earlier wrote:

> Appellant has alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. He says his lawyer never told him he could be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines and that if so he would be entitled to a lesser sentence. *See also Hendrix v. State,*491 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

> Because the allegations are sufficient, we quash the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing and order thereon.

*Henderson v. State,*496 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

The reason no hearing was granted was because the judge said he would depart from the recommended guidelines sentence even if appellant élected a guideline sentence. Maybe so, but this court ordered a hearing to determine whether appellant was properly represented. If he was not properly represented appellant should be permitted to elect to be sentenced under the guidelines. Then if the sentencing judge decides to depart from the guidelines, that procedure should be followed; a written order with proper reasons for departure.

The order denying hearing on the defendant’s motion is reversed and this cause remanded to the circuit court of the ninth circuit. Upon receipt of this case the chief judge shall assign a different circuit judge to preside over this case and carry out the mandate of this Court and the law in regard to petitions for post-conviction relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kryle ROY, Sr.

No. 89-KK-1309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Roy, Kryle Sr.; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial *1223writs; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, Nos. 65680, 65681, 65682, 65683; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW89-0364.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The
undersigned, Shane Whittle, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)
            the
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jammin Java  Corp. for the
      quarter ended October 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and




(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Jammin
      JavaCorp.




Dated:
December 14, 2009




/s/ Shane
Whittle


Shane
Whittle


President,
Secretary and Treasurer Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Filed 4/13/98 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1998 ND 79

City of Bismarck,Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Carl W. Fischer,Defendant and Appellant

Criminal No. 970368

Appeal from the District Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.                             

William D. Schmidt of Schmitz, Moench & Schmidt, 222 North 4th Street, P.O. Box 2076, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2076, for defendant and appellant.  

Paul H. Fraase, Assistant City Attorney, P.O. Box 5503, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5503, for plaintiff and appellee.

City of Bismarck v. Fischer

Criminal No. 970368 

PER CURIAM.

[¶1]Carl W. Fischer appeals from the trial court’s Amended Judgment of Conviction entered after a six-person jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol.  Prior to submission of the case to the jury, Fischer made a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P.  The trial court denied Fischer’s motion and submitted the case to the jury.  The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Fischer’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 

[¶2]In deciding a motion for judgment of acquittal, “the trial court, upon reviewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, must deny the motion if there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”  State v. Steinbach, 1998 ND 18, ¶16 (citing  State v. Kingsley, 383 N.W.2d 828, 829 (N.D. 1986)).  On appeal, in order to successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permits no reasonable inference of guilt.  Id. (citing State v. Fasching, 461 N.W.2d 102, 103 (N.D. 1990)).  The record in this case does not establish an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying Fischer’s motion.  We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s decision under Rule 35.1(a)(4), N.D.R.App.P.

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Herbert L. Meschke

William A. Neumann

David W. Nelson, D.J.

[¶4]David Nelson, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
#### John S. BORDELON v. Douglas A. COCHRANE, Jr., et al.

No. 88-C-3088.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Bordelon, John S.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-0670; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 85-2034.

Prior report: La.App., 533 So.2d 82.

Denied.
Ref: LE GOUVERNEMENT DU GRAND-DUCHE DE LUXEMBOURG Ministere du Developpementdurable et des Infrastructures Direction de !'aviation civile 2015- 45232 Correspondent: Mr. Marc RAUS Tel : {+352) 247-74946 e-mail: marc.raus@av.etat.lu

Y/Ref: Luxembourg, 

## 17 MARS 

## 2015

Office of International Aviation- US Department ofTransportation c/o Mr. Paul GRETCH Director 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE WASHINGTON DC 20590

Subject: 

### CharterOperationsbetweenthe Grand- Duchyof Luxembourgandthe United Statesof America
Dear Mr. Gretch, This is to confirm that the Luxembourg Government, on the basis of reciprocity, will approve requests from US - designated airlines to perform fifth, sixth and seventh freedom charter operations on the understanding that the US Government will approve similar requests from Luxembourg- designated airlines

4, rue Lou Hemmer L-1748 Luxembourg Tel (+352) 247 749oo Fax (+352) 46 77 90 Director o Civil Aviation

info@dac.public.lu www.dac.public.lu www.mt.public.lu