alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS



 






Exhibit 10.1




Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors




     The following table sets forth the Company’s current compensation arrangements with its
non-employee directors.




			 
	Annual Retainer —	 $35,000, paid quarterly (40% automatically paid in deferred stock units under
the Deferred Compensation Plan discussed below)





Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board — $60,000




Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee — $10,000




Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee — $5,000




Board Meeting Fees — $2,500 for attendance in person, $1,000 for telephonic attendance





			
	Committee Meeting Fees —	 $2,000 for attendance in person at a meeting occurring on a day other
than the day of either a Board meeting or another committee meeting for which a particular
director is compensated, or $500 for telephonic attendance






			
	Options —	 15,000 shares upon initial election (vesting 3,000 per year), exercisable at market
price on date of grant






3,000 shares (proposed to be increased to 5,000 shares, subject to shareholder
approval) per year upon each re-election, vesting after 6 months and exercisable at
market price on date of grant




Once vested, all options remain exercisable for ten years from grant



Phantom Stock Deferred Compensation Plan — Each director may elect to designate all or a portion
of his remaining cash compensation to purchase phantom EMS share units at current market
prices. Cash payout occurs following retirement as a director or, for voluntary deferrals,
after 5 years, subject to the director’s limited right to further defer. Payment is based on
market value of the common stock at the time paid, and is taxable income to the director only
at that time.



Umbrella Liability Insurance — $3 million personal liability coverage above normal limits under
personally-maintained household/auto policies


The Company also reimburses travel expenses incurred in connection with activities as a member of
the Board and its Committees.
#### COFFEE v. COFFEE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 7, 1952.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1952.

David R. Reed, Paducah, for appellant, Ben Morris, Wickliffe, Herbert Melton, Jr., Paducah, for appellee,

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal by W. M. Coffee is from an order awarding his wife, Mrs. Cledie Coffee, maintenance of $125 a month pen-dente lite. Sec. 425, Civil Code of Practice, KRS 403.060. The accumulated judgment is within the ■ jurisdiction of this court. Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 246 Ky. 546, 55 S.W.2d 351; Ahrens v. Ahrens, 299 Ky. 497, 185 S.W.2d 694.

The appellant brought into the case the charge that his wife had attempted to kill him, for which she had 'been indicted. He claimed that she had thereby forfeited her right even to temporary maintenance. The court refused to go- into that matter on the motion except to hear Dr. Coffee’s testimony and to sustain objection to the inquiry of the wife upon the ground of her constitutional immunity. The charge was contained in the ¡broad allegation of cruel treatment which the husband had pleaded in his divorce action and which she had denied. She too pleaded ’ cruel treatment against him in her counterclaim. The court did not have a complete hearing of the merits of the right to 'divorce but heard what it deemed to be sufficient evidence to show the need of the wife and the ability of the husband to pay the amount allowed pending the final decision. 1 The appeal presents the sole question of an arbitrary abuse of discretion by the chancellor.

It. is-to be remembered that'until there is a final adjudication of divorce, the obligation rests on the husband to support his wife to the extent at least of affording her-a modest livelihood. There was more than a prima facie case made out by the wife both as to the right to an allowance and the amount thereof within the conditions laid down in Kelly v. Kelly, 179 Ky. 586, 200 S.W. 925, and other cases. Our review of the evidence ■ does not persuade us in any degree that there was an abuse of judicial discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2977 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage, 

as supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of containment, removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, 

and other sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar program under part 

D of the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. WHITFIELD (for himself and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for coverage, as supplies associated with the injection 

of insulin, of containment, removal, decontamination and 

disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, and other 

sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar 

program under part D of the Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2977 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Safe Needle 

3 Disposal Coverage Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CONTAINMENT, REMOVAL, DECON5 TAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF HOME-GEN6 ERATED NEEDLES, SYRINGES, AND OTHER 

7 SHARPS THROUGH A SHARPS CONTAINER, 

8 DECONTAMINATION/DESTRUCTION DEVICE, 

9 OR SHARPS-BY-MAIL PROGRAM OR SIMILAR 

10 PROGRAM UNDER MEDICARE PART D. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–2(e)(1)(B) of the 

12 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–102(e)(1)(B)) is 

13 amended by inserting after ‘‘regulations of the Secretary’’ 

14 the following: ‘‘and including devices approved for home 

15 use by the Food and Drug Administration for the safe 

16 and effective containment, removal, decontamination and 

17 disposal of home-generated needles, syringes, and other 

18 sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/de19 struction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar pro20 gram’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2014. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137259 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137259 

 COA: 284929 

Wayne CC: 88-010966-03-FC

KEVIN LOUIS CHANDLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

1215 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 30, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3261 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3261

   Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Sanity Act for the National 
Debt''.

SEC. 2. NONAPPLICABILITY OF DEBT CEILING.

    Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall not apply 
for the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
ending 90 days thereafter.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Texas Southern 

University, Jim McShan, and Greg Williams

Appellate case number: 01-14-00596-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-12277

Trial court: 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed an opposed emergency motion for temporary relief in this 

appeal. The Court requests a response to the emergency motion from appellee Texas 

Southern University. The response must be filed no later than 5:00 p.m., 10 days from 

the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 9.2(c)(4).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  

Date: August 7, 2014
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 Nos. ER00-2962-000 and ER00-2962-003]

Take notice that on October 18, 2000, West Georgia Generating Company, L.P. (West Georgia), an Exempt Wholesale Generator that owns and operates a 640 MW electric generation plant in Thomastown, Georgia, tendered for filing a Negotiated Contract for the Purchase of Firm Capacity and Energy between West Georgia Generating Company L.P., and Gulf Power Company (the Agreement). The purpose of the filing was to provide corrected designations under Order No. 614, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000), as required by the letter order issued in these dockets on September 21, 2000.

West Georgia requests that the Agreement be permitted to become effective June 1, 2000.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 and protests should be filed on or November 8, 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 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.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27777  Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
23.1










Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The
General Partner
 Essex
Portfolio, L.P.:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-141726, 333-131276, 333-44467, and 333-108336) of
Essex Portfolio, L.P. of our reports dated February 27, 2008, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Essex Portfolio, L.P. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, partners’ capital, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2007, the related financial statement
schedule III, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.
  
   / S/KPMG LLP
 KPMG
LLP
  
   San
Francisco, California
 February
27, 2008
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________
No. 96-11521

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOUIS DEE YOUNG, JR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-3135-R)

January 14, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Louis Dee Young, Jr. ap peals the district court’s denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Young argues that L opez v. United States, 514

U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), has invalidated-2-

his conviction, that federal jurisdiction was lacking because he

was not arrested on federally-owned land, that the indictment

against him was defective, that the trial court delivered improper

jury instructions, and that counsel was ineffective at trial and on

appeal.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs. We find

no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory J. Halpern, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Circle Group Holdings,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report my conclusions  about the  effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on my  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were  significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to the  date  of  our  most  recent  evaluation,
including any  corrective  actions with regard to significant  deficiencies  and
material weaknesses.

Date:  October 25, 2006
                                                   /S/  GREGORY J. HALPERN
                                                   -------------------------
                                                   Gregory J. Halpern
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      FOR PERIOD ENDED
                                                                    SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                                                    ------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>        
   Net earnings available to common ..................................   $ 1,851,000
                                                                         ===========

   Average share outstanding .........................................    12,254,809
Basic net earnings per-share .........................................   $      0.15
                                                                         ===========

   Average shares outstanding ........................................    12,254,809
   Stock option incremental shares ...................................           518
                                                                         -----------
      Average shares outstanding, diluted ............................    12,255,327

Diluted net earnings per-share .......................................   $      0.15
                                                                         ===========

Diluted net earnings per share assuming conversion of preferred stock:
   Net earnings ......................................................   $ 1,851,000
   Preferred stock dividends for the period ..........................   $   104,000
                                                                         -----------
   Net earnings before preferred stock dividend ......................   $ 1,955,000
                                                                         ===========
   Average shares outstanding ........................................    12,254,809
   Assume conversion of preferred stock ..............................       260,000
   Stock option incremental shares ...................................           518
                                                                         -----------
      Total ..........................................................    12,515,327
                                                                         ===========

   Per-share amount (antidilutive) ...................................   $      0.16
                                                                         ===========
</TABLE>
#### Bill COMPTON, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 25, 1952.

Fritz Krueger, Somerset, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty.' Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Pulaski Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for unlawfully selling spirituous, vinous and malt intoxicating liquors in local option territory. $60 fine and 30 days in jail.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
#### Joseph Earl BOMAN v. STATE.

No. 24811.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1950.

, None on appeal, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of attempting to commit burglary, second offense, and his punishment assessed at four years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He excepted to the judgment and gave notice of appeal to this court.

He now files his personal request that his said appeal be dismissed, and in compliance therewith, his appeal is dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2022

No. 04-22-00642-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF O.J.S.D.,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-01386

Kevin Henderson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s order of termination signed on June 2, 

2022. Although the child’s attorney and guardian ad litem apparently did not approve the order 

as to form until September 20, 2022, appellant’s notice of appeal was due within twenty days 

after the order was signed, which was June 2, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Appellant’s 

notice of appeal was not filed until September 29, 2022. Because it appears we lack jurisdiction 

over this appeal, appellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing no later than October 21, 

2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

It is so ORDERED on October 11, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EFRAIN MALDONADO RIVERA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1253

[September 17, 2020]

Appeal of order denying 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph Marx, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 50-2011-CF-13345-AXXX-MB.

Robert David Malove of the Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A.,

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report of Gasel Transportation Lines Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, S. Gene Thompson, President, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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 Registrant.



Date:  April 25, 2006



/s/  S. Gene Thompson

President, Treasurer

& Chief Executive Officer