alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.44**CSK AUTO, INC.March 31, 2008James Constantine[Address]Dear Jim:     In connection with your employment by CSK Auto, Inc. (the “Company”), the Company currentlyreimburses the costs incurred by you in connection with (i) your commute to and from the Company’soffices in Phoenix, Arizona, and (ii) temporary living arrangements in Phoenix, Arizona area.     The Company hereby agrees that if, prior to the completion of your permanent relocation to thePhoenix, Arizona area, the Company enters into an agreement that, if consummated, would result in aChange of Control (as defined in the CSK Auto Corporation 2004 Stock and Incentive Plan), then (i)the period during which the Company will continue to reimburse you for temporary housing,relocation and commuting expenses (as set forth in your offer letter) shall be automaticallyextended until the earlier of (A) the date that is eight months after the consummation of theChange of Control transaction and (B) the date that is thirty days following the date of yourtermination of employment for any reason, (ii) you will not be required to relocate to the Phoenix,Arizona area after the date the Change of Control is consummated, (iii) unless the board ofdirectors or chief executive officer of the Company determines otherwise, you will not be permittedto relocate to the Phoenix, Arizona area after the date such agreement is entered into, and (iv)from and after the consummation of the Change of Control and until the earlier of (A) the date thatis eight months after the consummation of the Change of Control transaction and (B) the date thatis thirty days following the date of your termination of employment for any reason, the Company(and any successor thereto) will continue to reimburse you for travel and temporary living expenseson terms no less favorable than those provided to you prior to the consummation of the Change ofControl, which terms shall include, but shall not be limited to, the terms set forth inAppendix A hereto and, to the extent not inconsistent with Appendix A, the CSKAuto, Inc. Relocation Policy and the Company’s travel policy, each as in effect and applicable toyou prior to the Change of Control.     For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall limit the Company’s additional obligationsunder that certain employment offer letter between you and the Company dated October 24, 2007,which shall continue to apply (regardless of the occurrence of a Change of Control) in accordancewith the terms thereof.*signature page follows*
 

 
James Constantine
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 17, 2020

s0414

Order 

Clerk

April 17, 2020

160676

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160676

COA: 346661

Livingston CC: 18-025036-FH

KEVIN WHITE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by 

the prosecutor, but not addressed by that court in its initial review of this case. Contrary 

to the determinations of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, there is no record 

evidence that the defendant knew that the person to whom he delivered the controlled 

substance had moved from Macomb County to Livingston County and that the controlled 

substance would be consumed in Livingston County. Thus, the record does not support 

the Court of Appeals’ holding that the defendant intended the felony or acts done in 

perpetration of felony to have an effect in Livingston County. See MCL 762.8; People v 

McBurrows, 504 Mich 308 (2019).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001051818
<NAME> FLAGSTAR CAPITAL CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           7,456
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        118,505
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (250)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,722
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                645
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     57,500
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 129,722
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,508
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,508
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,508
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,865
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.78
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  250
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               250
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### BLACKWOOD v. STATE.

No. 26413.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $75.

The complaint and information, as well as all matters of procedure, appear reg*440ular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RT01-75-000]

Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. tendered for filing pursuant to FPA sections 203 and 205 an Application for Approval of a Regional Transmission Organization and Approval of the Transfer of Transmission Assets to a Regional Transmission Organization (the Application). The Application states that it is the first phase of Entergy's compliance with Order No. 2000.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene, comments, or protests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via                           ( print page 64217)                        the internet in lieu of paper.                     *See,*18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27550  Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00167

- CV
City of McAllen, Texas and Mike R. Perez, In His Official Capacity as City Manager v. Othal E. Brand
On Appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 1763

- 12

- I

JUDGMEN T THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDER ED . Costs of the appeal are adjudge d against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 2 , 2015
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63242-63243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27099]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-41-000]


Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 11, 2000, Young Gas Storage Company, 
Ltd., (Young) filed in compliance with Order No. 587-L.
    Young states that it is a natural gas storage facility and has no 
imbalance provisions. Young states that pursuant to Order Granting 
Clarification, issued September 28, 2000 in Docket No. RM96-1-016, 
Young is not required to implement imbalance trading on its system.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance

[[Page 63243]]

with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27099 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### McADOO v. STATE.

No. 26348.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

■ No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<PAGE>



Exhibit 99.2
Deloitte & Touche LLP
                    Suite 1200                  Telephone: (714) 436-7100
                    695 Town Center Drive       Facsimile: (714) 436-7200
                    Costa Mesa, California  92626-1924


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

We have examined management's assertion about First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1997, included in the
accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for First Alliance
Mortgage Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on First Alliance Mortgage Company's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that First Alliance Mortgage Company
complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all respects.


\s\ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Costa Mesa, CA
January 19, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SUPERVALU INC. (the
Company) certifies that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly fiscal period ended September 6, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period and as of the dates covered thereby.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: October 15, 2008 |  | /s/ JEFFREY NODDLE     
|                        |  | Jeffrey Noddle         
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.47



 Exhibit 10.47 
 SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENEFITS 
 AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS BENEFITS AND FEES *

  

					
	 Description of Benefit
	  	 Eligible Positions
	  	 Amount/Schedule

	Club Memberships	  	Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, President, Consumer Solutions	  	Club Membership, not including dues
			
	Sprint Nextel Long-Distance Telephone and Wireless Service (1)	  	Board of Directors	  	Actual usage (continues after retirement for up to 120 months for legacy Sprint Directors with 5 years or more service) and use of Sprint PCS and IDEN handsets, accessories, equipment and
replacement parts related to this service.
			
	Sprint Nextel Long-Distance Telephone Service (1)	  	Executive Officers	  	Legacy Sprint: Actual usage (continues after retirement)
			
	Personal use of corporate aircraft	  	Chief Executive Officer	  	Under an executive security program established by the Human Capital and Compensation Committee, the CEO is required to use Sprint Nextel aircraft for personal as well as business travel. Sprint
Nextel provides these security services for its benefit rather than as a personal benefit or perquisite for the CEO.
			
		  	Executive Officers	  	The CEO must pre-approve any proposed personal use of the corporate aircraft for personal reasons.
			
	Executive Physical	  	Legacy Sprint Executive Officers	  	Reimbursement for Annual Physical Examination
			
	Separation	  	Executive Officers (unless otherwise provided in an individual agreement with an officer)	  	 Legacy Sprint: 1 year salary and benefits continuation plus lump sum bonus payment at conclusion of one year period equal to 80 percent of target
opportunity
  
 Legacy Nextel: Benefits set forth in Nextel Change of Control Retention Bonus and Severance Pay
Plan










					
	 Description of Benefit
	  	 Eligible Positions
	  	 Amount/Schedule

	 Fees
	  	Board of Directors	  	 Annual retainer - $70,000/year
  
 Additional Annual retainer for Lead Directors - $75,000/year
  
 Committee Chair additional
annual retainer
  
 Audit Committee - $20,000
  
 Human Capital and Compensation Committee - $15,000
  
 Other Committees - $10,000
  
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees - $2,000/
meeting
  
 Telephonic Board and Committee Meeting Fees-$1,000/meeting
  
 Annual award of $100,000 in restricted stock units




	*	This summary is effective beginning March 1, 2006 and replaces the schedule filed as Exhibit 10(dd) to Sprint Nextel’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005. 


	(1)	Sprint reimburses for income taxes associated with these benefits. 

  

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000095779
<NAME> SWANK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,326
<INVENTORY>                                     38,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,831
<PP&E>                                          26,271
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,688
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,078
<SALES>                                         65,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,806
<CGS>                                           38,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (359)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    501
<INCOME-TAX>                                       195
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27501]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 1:00 p.m., Monday, October 30, 2000.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered:   
 Final rules for a regulatory framework for Multilateral 
Transaction Execution Facilities, Intermediaries and Clearing 
Organizations.
 Final rules relating to Intermediaries of Commodity Interest 
Transactions.
 Final rules for a New Regulatory Framework for Clearing 
Organizations.
 Final rules on the Exemption for Bilateral Transactions.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-27501 Filed 10-20-00; 5:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### STEPHENS v. STATE.

No. 22693.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 22, 1943.

G. Q. Youngblood, of Dallas, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty of theft of property of the value of more than fifty dollars, appellant was awarded a term of four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exceptions. In the absence of the evidence adduced upon the trial, this court is unable to appraise the matters presented in the motion for a new trial.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
(1)
    
    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 the Partnership.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.By:
    MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General PartnerBy:
    /s/ THOMAS W. PERRYName:
    Thomas W. Perry*Title:
    Chief Accounting Officer and Controller  
 *
    
    Thomas W. Perry functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.