alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/22/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL E. and EMMA HARPER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 95-7063 (D.C. No. CIV 94-073-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BRISCOE and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Paul and Emma Harper appeal the district court’s denial of attorney fees they expended to prosecute their action against the United States to recover late filing penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Service. In this case, plaintiffs received automatic and discretionary extensions to file their income tax returns for the years 1988- 1990. See 26 U.S.C. § 6081(a). Relying on the advice of their accountant, plaintiffs estimated their tax liability to be $30,000 in 1988, $24,625 in 1989, and $0 in 1990.- 2 -

Their actual tax liability turned out to be $158,585 in 1988, $89,290 in 1989, and $94,030 in 1990. Based on these repeated discrepancies, the IRS retroactively revoked plaintiffs’ filing extensions and assessed penalties of about $47,000. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1). Plaintiffs paid the penalties and sued for a refund, arguing that they had good cause for their estimations. The good cause defense was based on reliance on their reputable accountant, and on past years’ losses from investments for which plaintiffs had been entitled to take deductions. The district court agreed and awarded plaintiffs a refund of penalties. The district court found the IRS’s position in revoking the extensions substantially justified, however, because of the large discrepancy between the amounts estimated and the final tax liability. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7430(a), a “prevailing party” in a tax refund proceeding may be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. A private plaintiff is the “prevailing party” if she substantially prevailed on her claim, and the position of the United States in the proceeding was not “substantially justified.” 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(A). The government’s position is “substantially justified” if it has a “reasonable basis both in law and fact.” Pate v. United States , 982 F.2d 457, 459 (10th Cir. 1993) (quotation and citation omitted). We review the district court’s denial of reasonable litigation costs under § 7430 for an abuse of discretion. Id

. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and cases cited therein, the district court’s orders and findings, and the record on appeal. Based on this review, we cannot say that- 3 -

the district court abused its discretion in determining that the IRS was substantially justified in revoking plaintiffs’ extensions and assessing penalties. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ applications for attorney’s fees and costs is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of  Chapter 63 of Title 18 of The United States Code

I, Steven J. Martin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The ServiceMaster Company, certify that (i) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The
ServiceMaster Company.

/s/ STEVEN J. MARTIN Steven J. Martin
March 30, 2010


---



QuickLinks
EX-10.10
                               PROMISSORY NOTE

                               PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount $7,000.00                           Date: May 7, 2004

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to
pay to the order of Patrick A. Galliher the sum of Seven Thousand
Dollars, together with interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month on
the unpaid balance. Said sum shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

RMD Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/  Pat Galliher
Pat Galliher, President
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                [QIAO XING UNIVERSAL TELEPHONE, INC. LETTERHEAD]


June 28, 2002
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Dear Sirs,

Arthur Andersen & Co has represented to Qiao Xing Universal Telephone, Inc. that
the audit was subject to Arthur Andersen & Co's quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen & Co personnel working on
audits, availability or national office consultation and availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen & Co to conduct the relevant
portions of the audit.



Very truly yours,


/s/ MR. WU RUI LIN
------------------------
Mr. Wu Rui Lin
Chairman
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 10.2

              SUMMARY OF THE AWARD LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS
                     UNDER THE MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
                    FOR THE 2006 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                OF REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED

                                                          INCENTIVE AWARD AS A
NAME AND TITLE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                          PERCENTAGE OF
                                                             BASE SALARY(1)
-----------------------------------                       --------------------

A. Greig Woodring                                               0 - 200%
   President and Chief Executive Officer
David B. Atkinson                                               0 - 160%
   Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Jack B. Lay                                                     0 - 160%
   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Paul A. Shuster                                                 0 - 160%
   Executive Vice President, U.S. Operations
Graham Watson                                                   0 - 160%
   Executive Vice President, International

<FN>
-------------------------------

(1) Results for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (the "Company")
under the Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated Management Incentive
Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2003 (the "MIP"), are
measured primarily on annual operating earnings (net income from continuing
operations less realized capital gains and losses and certain other
non-operating items) per share and, secondarily, on annual consolidated
revenues. The MIP award for certain participants may be measured in part or
in whole on divisional results, which will be based on the division's
revenues and operating earnings.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7073** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ALONZO NEIL BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00295

- DCN

- 3; 2:12

- cv - 00286

- DCN )

Submitted : September 23 , 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Alonzo Neil Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM: Alonzo Neil Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Brown’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 2083 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, ma de retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ) (2012)
. Brown’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-030-01-1020-XX: GP1-0011]


Notice of Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC): 
Pendleton, Oregon, November 27-28, 2000.

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

SUMMARY: On November 27, 2000 at 10 a.m. there will be a meeting of the 
John Day/Snake RAC at the Red Lion Hotel, 304 Southeast Nye Avenue in 
Pendleton, Oregon. The meeting is open to the public. Public comments 
will be received at 10 a.m. on November 28, 2000. The following topics 
will be discussed by the council: Program of work, Hells Canyon 
Subgroup Charter review, RAC membership review, Schedule of Proposed 
Actions, Blue Mountain Demo Area Project, Social Economic Map update; 
OHV followup; A 15 minute round table for general issues.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy L. Guches, Bureau of Land 
Management, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 
97918, Telephone (541) 473-3144.

Sandy L. Guches,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-27466 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
Exhibit 10.2


REGAL
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP

SUMMARY OF

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGMENTS


        Directors
who are employees of Regal Entertainment Group or its subsidiaries receive no
additional cash or equity compensation for service on the Regal Entertainment
Group Board of Directors. All Directors are reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses related to attendance at Board of Director and Board of
Director committee meetings.  Unless
otherwise waived by the Directors, Directors who are not employees of Regal
Entertainment Group also receive an annual cash retainer for Board of Director
service of $40,000 and a grant of restricted class A common stock having, at
the time of grant, a fair market value of $85,000.  The shares of restricted stock vest on the
first anniversary of the date of grant.


        The
Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors shall
receive an additional $10,000 annual cash retainer and the other Directors who
serve on the Audit Committee shall receive an additional $5,000 annual cash
retainer for service on the Audit Committee. 
Directors do not receive additional cash or equity compensation for
service on any other committees of the Board of Directors.
exv10w48



 






EXHIBIT 10.48




2006 Base Salaries and Fiscal Year 2005 Bonuses for Named Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Salary	 	 	Bonus	 
	Hollings C. Renton

Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	$	525,000	 	 	$	250,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Edward F. Kenney

Executive Vice President and
Chief Business Officer
	 	$	360,000	 	 	$	130,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Leonard E. Post, Ph.D.

Former Senior Vice
President, Research and Development1
	 	 	N/A	2	 	$	120,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Fabio M. Benedetti, M.D.

Vice President, Medical
Affairs
	 	$	295,000	 	 	$	100,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Scott M. Freeman, M.D.

Vice President, Clinical
Development
	 	$	278,000	 	 	$	95,000	 








 




			
	1	 	On December 5, 2005, Onyx entered into a
separation agreement with Dr. Post whereby Dr. Post resigned as an employee and
officer of Onyx effective January 15, 2006.
	 
	2	 	As severance, Onyx has agreed to pay Dr. Post
the equivalent of 12 months of his 2005 base salary, $315,000, less standard
withholdings and deductions.
# CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 

# Saving a 

# National Treasure

Robert Perciasepe, Acting Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail code 1 101A Washington, D.C. 20460 Via email and U.S. Mail: perciasepe.bob@eparnail.epa.gov RE: Support for Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Standard/Low Sulfur Gasoline Rule Dear Administrator Perciasepe: Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our strong support for the Tier 3 standards that your agency has recently proposed. There is no doubt that the implementation of these new rules will produce substantial public health, environmental, and economic benefits to our country. They will substantially reduce heart and lung health impacts, especially for children, the elderly, and those with existing respiratory and cardiac problems. They will produce literally billions of dollars in health care savings, and allow us, as well, to continue to produce competitive motor vehicles. The Tier3/low sulfur gasoline program will lead directly to a regional reduction in emissions by tens of thousands of tons per year in nitrogen oxides, which would be of enormous benefit across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, since air pollution provides about a third of the nitrogen entering the Bay system. urge you to move surely and expeditiously in ultimately promulgating these new regulations. '(ou rsjincerely,

rn Coble, Vice President Environmental Protection and Restoration 

# A^1^^^^

2013 APR 1 5 PM Z: 56 OFFiIiZ OFTHE EXEiW'i'lVE SE C F

Ei^IRHT SIMON SIDAMONERISTOF1r 

### CHAIR JANE P BA1TEN 

### VICE CHAIR ALAN B. GRIFFITH 

### VICE CHAIR WILLIAM C. BAKER 

### PRESIDENT FAN R. FIANCE 

### TREASURER MARY TOO WINCHESTER 

### SECRETARY

TRUSTEES S. DECKER ANSTROM JOANNE S. BERKLEY W. RUSSELL G. BYERS, JR. D. KEITH CAMPBELL JOHN 1. CASTEEN III THOMAS M. DAVIS III AMANDA DEAVER RICHARD L. FRANVO G. WADDY 

### GARRETI LAUREN GLEASON CAROLYN GROOBEY 

### JANET F. VMS, M.D. ANN 

### FRITZ HACKETT MICHAEL J. I-IANLEY ANNA JOHNSON ROBERTA. KINSLEY MATTHEWJ. KLEIN BURKS B. LAPIIAM HARRY 1. LESTER BYRON F M.ARCHANT H. TURNEY MCKNIGHT CHARLES W. MOORMAN W. TAYLOE MURPHY. JR. ARNOLD I. RICFIMAN ALEXIS Cl. 

### SANT TRUMAN T. SEMANU ANNE B. SHUMADINE 

### JENNIFER STANLEY BISHOP EUGENE TAYLOR SUTTON ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS SUSAN P WILMERDING PETER L. WOICKE 

### ALAN L. WURTZEL

HONORARY TRUSTEES 

### DONALD F. BOESCH, Ph.D. LOUISA C. DUEMLING C.A. PORTER HOPKINS C GAYLON LAYFIELD III HF. INFEST M. LEE MARSUON WAYNE A. MILLS MARIE W. RIDDER JAMES E. ROGERS RUSSELL C. SCOIT THOMAS H. STONER AILEEN BOWDOIN TRAIN 

# PHILIP MERRILL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 6 HERNDON AVENUE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403 410/268-8816 FAX: 410/268-6687 CBF.ORG
#### LOUISVILLE TAXICAB & TRANSFER COMPANY, appellant, v. Joseph E. LANE, by His Next Friend, Joseph R. Lane, appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 7, 1954.

Robert L. Page, Louisville, for appellant.

Fred J. Karem, Louisville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion that an appeal be granted, under KRS 21.080, from a judgment for $1,500 in favor of the ap-pellee for an injury sustained by him when his motorcycle struck the door, which had been opened by the passenger, of one of appellant’s taxicabs waiting for a red light to change. We conclude that the passenger’s testimony justified submission of the case to the jury.

Finding no prejudicial error and less than $2,500 being involved, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
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 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 Company.


February 6, 2004                        By: /s/ William Scigliano
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            William Scigliano
                                            Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
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 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 Company.


February 6, 2004                        By: /s/ Michael Walsh
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            Michael Walsh
                                            Chief Financial Officer