alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.19 - 1997 OFFICER BONUS PLAN

The Company has adopted a 1997 Officer Bonus Plan under which all executive 
officers are awarded cash bonuses based on the Company's operating results.  
The respective bonus payments are calculated with reference to the actual 
pre-tax income (and revenue for the Senior Vice President Sales and Customer 
Support) results as measured against the 1997 Operating Plan presented 
and approved at the Board of Directors meeting on January 16, 1997.  The 
pre-tax income level is measured prior to any accruals reflecting the 
Company's bonus payments.  The pre-tax income level will be measured prior 
to any accruals reflecting the Company's bonus payments.  No profit bonus 
will be paid for achievement of 50% or less of the planned objective.  At 
100% achievement, 100% of the profit bonus will be paid.  At 150% achievement,
200% of the profit bonus will be awarded.  For results between 50% and 100% 
and between 100% and 150%, the profit bonus will scale in a linear fashion 
(e.g., 50% profit bonus at 75% achievement of plan and 150% profit bonus at 
125% of plan.

The "On-Plan" revenue commissions for the Senior Vice President, Sales and 
Customer Support, shall be measured against the revenue plan of $337.6 million
(excludes Service and Eagle(TM) division revenue for which the Senior Vice 
President is not responsible).  Revenue commissions shall be calculated at 
 .033% of annual revenue without regard to a cap.
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Sand Filters

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and

controllers.

Th is tele phone contact report supports EPA’s development of cost element (7) by documenting EPA's

communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash gravity sand filters used in the

Steam Electric cost model.Project No.: 0172. 08 .02 9 .0 4 4 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam /Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 03/ 21 / 2011 Time: 11 :3 0 am EST

Company Name: Siemens Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez

Phone No : ( 2 29 )

- 227

- 8 778

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Sand filters costs for chemical precipitation costing

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Monday

, March 21 , 20 1 1 Mr. Miguel Gutierrez left me a message to discuss costs of sand filters

. At

11:30am I returned Mr. Guitierrez’s call. He told me he could provide costs for pre

- packaged sand filter units

(referred to as package units) which were essentially steel box units which already contain the sand filter

material. He stated they can also provide concrete basin units where the client constructs a concrete basin for

the filter and Siemens just provides the internal material. He said concrete basin units are only applicable for

ranges over 300 gpm

, and the cost of such units would be 30% less than that of the package units.

Mr. Guitierrez provided equipment costs for the flow range previously requested by Rekha Hareendran, which

was 20 gpm to 700 gpm. While costs are provided for specific flow rates, he stated there is flexibility in the

units in that they can handle more or less than the specified flow rate . Below are the costs:

**•** 20 gpm

– their smallest unit could handle this flow rate. The cost is $68,000

**•** 100 gpm

- $80,000

**•** 200 gpm

– this is their medium

- sized unit. The cost is $98,000

**•** 300 gpm

– this is their largest unit. The cos t is $180,000

**•** 400 gpm, 500 gpm

– these flow rates could be handled by 2 medium

- sized units. The cost is $196,000

**•** 600 gpm, 700 gpm

– these flow rates could be handled by 2 of the largest units. The cost is $360,000

I told Mr. Guitierrez that we are now looking for costs for an even smaller flow rate of 7 gpm. Mr. Guitierrez

stated that this flow rate could be handled by their smallest unit and the cost would be the same as what he

provided for the 20 gpm flow rate.

I asked Mr. Guitierre z to provide any additional specifications, details, and marketing material/brochures for the

sand filters. He stated he would provide drawings, brochures, and blanket specifications (including diameters,

heights) via email. He also stated that none of the information above is confidential business information and

can be shared with anyone.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0567

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LESLIE DEAN ERNST,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 5, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 30 2023

05/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0567
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*George Brandau, Defendant.

County Court, Oneida County,

June 11, 1959.

*George Brandan,*defendant in person.

*John M. Liddy, District Attorney (Willard Healy*of counsel), for plaintiff.

John J. Walsh, J.

This is an application in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis.*Defendant-petitioner alleges in his petition that he was convicted in Oneida County Court on February 24, 1944 for rape, second degree, in violation of section 2010 of the Penal Law of the State of New York, as a second offender, under sections 1941-1943 of the Penal Law of the State of New York. He contends that his conviction should be vacated, by reason of the fact that he w;as arrested two hours after the alleged crime, by the Utica City police *831and held for three and one-half to four days, without any contact with family, friends or counsel, and that during said period he was struck, beaten and threatened until he was forced to sign a confession, and then was taken before a City Judge for arraignment on a charge.

As a result, he argues that this illegal confession was obtained during a period of illegal detention and was allowed into evidence before the jury trying the issue, without the defendant being given an opportunity to show he was forced to sign the illegal confession while in illegal detention and that had such facts been made known to the jury the verdict would have been one of not guilty.

The grounds raised by defendant-petitioner are not within the periphery of error *coram nobis,*for it cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, nor to review errors of law (see *Matter of Hogan*v. *Court of Gen. Sessions,*296 N. Y. 1, 6; *People*v. *Gersewits,*294 N. Y. 163; *People*v. *Kendricks,*300 N. Y. 544).

In addition, this court finds no merit in the contentions of the defendant-petitioner that his detention was illegal.

The records of the City Court of Utica show that defendant-petitioner was arrested on January 8, 1944; that the confession used against him was obtained on January 8, 1944; that he was arraigned before the undersigned [then City Judge] on Sunday morning, January 9, 1944 under section 103 of the Utica City Court Code which permits the detention of a prisoner on a felony count for a period not to exceed 48 hours on a short-form affidavit; was informed of his rights and the matter adjourned to Tuesday morning, January 11, 1944 at which time he was arraigned before the Associate City Judge of Utica, pleaded not guilty to a charge of violating subdivision 5 of section 2010 of the Penal Law, waived examination and was ordered held to await the action of the Grand Jury.

Therefore, the confession was not obtained during a period of alleged illegal detention.

There being no necessity for a hearing in this case, the motion is in all respects denied.

The District Attorney is directed to enter an order in conformance with the decision herein and to forward a copy of said order to the defendant.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40144

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-1366-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Gonzalez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Luis Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

September 24, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40144 Document: 00514654432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2018
No. 18-40144

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-40144 Document: 00514654432 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2367

OBED RAMOS HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: July 6, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, 

for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Brendan P. 

Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Obed Ramos Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”), dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order finding him removable and denying his applications 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for 

review.*

Hernandez first challenges his removability as an alien 

convicted of an act involving moral turpitude, arguing that his 

forgery conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. It 

is uncontested, however, that Hernandez is removable for having 

entered this country without being admitted or paroled. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2012). Accordingly, we need not 

consider whether he is also removable on other grounds.

Hernandez also challenges the denial of his request for 

withholding of removal. “[A]dministrative findings of fact are 

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 

conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). A 

determination regarding eligibility for withholding of removal is 

affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record 

 

* Hernandez does not challenge the denial of asylum or 

protection under the CAT. Thus, review of those decisions is 

waived. Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 565 n.2 (4th Cir. 

2013).
3

considered as a whole. INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding 

that Hernandez did not meet his burden of proof for withholding of 

removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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
#### State v. Jones

20543

11/17/98

Granted

-Hawai'i--P.2d-
- -

MARTINEZ AERIAL VIDEO SERVICES' 

REAL ESTATE, INDUSTRIAL, AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL 

515 E. BARRUS PLACE 

CASAGRANDE 

ARIZONA 85122-1601 

(520)705-4268 (602) 650-0684 

Eman: kd7gmk@gmail.com 

www.martinezaerial.com 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations from 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 

91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 

91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b) 

Exemption No.13415 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3523 

December 13,2015 

Dear Sir, 

I am requesting an amendment to my original Section 333 Exemption No. 13415 in order to add 

local search & rescue and law enforcement operations by local police agencies too small to 

operate their own sUAS and lacking certificated pilots. I have been approach by them and they 

have expressed an interest. 

With very best regards, 

Luis Martinez 

Owner/Chief Pilot
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 632 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 632

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 2, 2016.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3716) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require States 
to provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services certain information 
with respect to provider terminations, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 114-45. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of 
a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 
may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
19052

#### Ritchie v. Administrative Director of the Court

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

** **
| **Subsidiary Name**                     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction**    | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|
| **EMRISE Electronics Corporation**           | ** ** | **New Jersey, USA** | ** ** |
| **CXR Larus Corporation**                    | ** ** | **Delaware, USA**   | ** ** |
| **EMRISE Power Supplies   Incorporated**     | ** ** | **California, USA** | ** ** |
| **EMRISE Electronics Ltd.**                  | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **XCEL Power Systems, Ltd.**            | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **CXR Anderson Jacobson SAS**                | ** ** | **France**          | ** ** |
| **Belix Power Conversions Ltd**              | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **Belix Wound Components Ltd**               | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **The Belix Company Ltd**                    | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **Pascall Electronics (Holdings)   Limited** | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **Pascall Electronics Limited**              | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **CXR Anderson Jacobson Ltd**                | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **Abbot Electronics Ltd.**                   | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |
| **Digitran Ltd.**                            | ** ** | **United Kingdom**  | ** ** |

 

----
#### State v. Betts

21001

02/18/1999

Reversed
August 9 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KEVIN PREDERGAST AND JAMES INBODEN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00206

- CV V.

DANIEL J. HOFFMAN AN D DANIEL J. HOFFMAN, LLC D/B/A DANIEL J. HOFFMAN & ASSOCIATES , FKA DANIEL J. HOFFMAN , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on November 9, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal D ISMISSED

. We order appellant, Kevin Predergast and James Inboden, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2019238EN.01001701.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Codorníu (JAUME CODORNÍU)

(Case T-358/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark JAUME CODORNÍU - Earlier Spanish and EU word marks JAUME SERRA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Distinctive character of a first name and a surname)

(2019/C 238/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain) (represented by: E. Arsuaga Santos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Codorníu, SA (Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and M. Hernández Gásquez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 (Case R 451/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between J. García Carrión and Codorníu.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders J. García Carrión SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders J. García Carrión SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Archived Summary Annual Reports

Last Modified: 

Print

Each USDA-registered research facility and Federal research facility is required by

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to submit an annual report that documents its use of

animals for research, testing, teaching, experimentation, and/or surgery.  

USDA-APHIS Animal Care receives copy of each research facility’s annual report on

or before December 1.  Animal Care reviews the data to ensure the calculated totals

are consistent with the number of reported animals in each pain/distress category. 

Reports with inconsistent data are returned to the research facility for correction. 

The completeness and accuracy of the non-Federal research facility annual reports

might be validated during USDA animal welfare compliance inspections.  However,

research facilities sometimes include additional data on their annual reports that is

not required under the Animal Welfare Act, such as data about rats of the genus

rattus, mice of the genus mus, and birds bred for use in research, animals used in

excluded field studies, animals used in clinical trials in the context of a veterinary

client relationship, and reptiles, fish, or other animals that are not covered by the

AWA.  The data in the summary reports represent the number of animals USDAregistered research facilities and Federal research facilities reported as being used

or held for research, testing, teaching, experimentation, and/or surgery. The

summary reports are based on the Annual Report column designations:

Column B (animals held by a facility but not used in any research that year)
Column C (animals used in research; no pain involved; no pain drugs

administered)

Column D (animals used in research; pain involved; pain drugs administered)

Column E (animals used in research; pain involved; no pain drugs administered)

Column F (total number of animals used in research; Column C + Column D +

Column E)

Animal Usage Summary by Research Facilities, by

Year

Year Report

2019

Column B (127.69 KB)

Column C (123.06 KB)

Column D (123.26 KB)

Column E (121.63 KB)

Column F (125.14 KB)

2018 All Columns (86.23 KB)

2017 All Columns (86.1 KB)

2016 All Columns (86.42 KB)

2015 All Columns (62.18 KB)

2014 All Columns (49.42 KB)

2013 All Columns (227.19 KB)

2012 All Columns (227.22 KB)

2011 All Columns (227.11 KB)

2010 All Columns (43.86 KB)

2009 All Columns (43.97 KB)

2008 All Columns (44.08 KB)

Archived Summary Reports
Looking for older reports (1999-2007)? Email APHISweb@usda.gov to request copies.
#### Katakura v. Katakura

22608

06/26/2000

Affirmed