alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10-O-1 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for 2006.**


    Exhibit
      10-O-1

    


    


    Annual
      Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for 2006

    


    On
      February 27, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
      the
      Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be
      used
      for purposes of determining any future cash awards for 2006 for participants,
      including executive officers, under the Company’s shareholder-approved Annual
      Incentive Compensation Plan (filed as Exhibit 10-T to the Company’s Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999). For most
      participants, the performance criteria to be used for 2006 under the plan
      include attaining specified levels of:

    


    • total
      company pre-tax profits, 

    


    • relevant
      business unit pre-tax profits (including the related financing
      profits),

    


    • relevant
      business unit cost reductions, 

    


    • relevant
      business unit market shares, and 

    


    • relevant
      business unit quality metrics. 

    


    Performance
      results against target levels established for each of these criteria will be
      weighted 75% to total company and business unit pre-tax profits and 25% to
      business unit cost performance, market share and quality.

    


    For
      some
      participants, including certain executive officers, whose job responsibilities
      encompass multiple business units, the performance criteria to be used for
      2006
      under the plan include attaining specified levels of:

    


    • total
      company pre-tax profits, 

    


    • total
      company cost reductions, 

    


    • total
      company market share, and 

    


    • total
      company quality metrics. 

    


    Performance
      results against target levels established for each of these criteria will be
      weighted 75% to total company pre-tax profits and 25% to total company cost
      performance, market share and quality.

    


    Based
      on
      business performance results for 2006 against the targeted levels established
      for each criteria, the Compensation Committee will determine the percentage
      of
      the target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 200% depending
      on actual performance achieved relative to the target levels. In addition,
      individual awards may be increased (within limits set by the Compensation
      Committee) or decreased from a formula amount, based on leadership level or
      salary grade level, to reward a person’s performance.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2915WA

_____________

City of Texarkana, Arkansas, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Four Thirteen, Inc.; Aetna Casualty and *

Surety Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 10, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999 

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The City of Texarkana, Arkansas, (the city) contracted with Four Thirteen, Inc.

(the contractor) to build a road. The contractor’s completed work did not meet the

city’s satisfaction, so the city refused to pay the contractor for additional materials

used in the project and demanded the contractor rebuild the road. The contractor

admitted it did not build the road to the contract’s specifications, but claimed the

weather hindered work and the city took no steps to correct known problems with the

roadbed’s subgrade. As ordered by the contract, the parties submitted the dispute to

arbitration. An arbitrator awarded each party damages and the contractor received a
-2-

net award of more than fifteen thousand dollars. The city sued in an Arkansas state

court, contesting the award. The contractor and its surety, Aetna Casualty and Surety

Co. (Aetna), removed the case to federal court and the district court granted the

contractor’s and Aetna’s motion for summary judgment. The city appeals, claiming

the arbitrator exceeded his authority in rendering the award.

 Our review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow. See Executive Life Ins.

Co. v. Alexander Ins. Ltd., 999 F.2d 318, 320 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). If the

arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the contract within the scope of the

arbitrator’s authority, a court cannot overturn the arbitrator’s decision even if the

court is convinced the arbitrator committed serious error. See id. at 320. We can set

aside the arbitration award only if the award fails to draw its essence from the

contract. See Osceola County Rural Water Sys., Inc. v. Subsurfco, Inc., 914 F.2d

1072, 1075 (8th Cir. 1990). Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied

that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in determining the award. The

arbitrator could grant relief in a manner he “deem[ed] just and equitable,” and we

cannot say the arbitrator’s award is not drawn from the essence of the contract. We

conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated

in its memorandum opinion, and we affirm without further discussion. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3270 

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 the National Debt’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONAPPLICABILITY OF DEBT CEILING. 

7 Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall 

8 not apply for the period beginning on the date of the en9 actment of this Act and ending 365 days thereafter. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                       999
<INVENTORY>                                        370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,257
<PP&E>                                           7,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,622
<SALES>                                         15,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,352
<CGS>                                            1,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,159)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.62)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice # 3447]


Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Renewal

    The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Overseas 
Security Advisory Council. This advisory council will continue to 
interact on overseas security matters of mutual interest between the 
U.S. Government and the American private sector. The Council's 
initiatives and security publications provide a unique contribution to 
protecting American private sector interests abroad. The Under 
Secretary for Management has determined that the Council is necessary 
and in the public interest.
    The Council consists of representatives from four (4) U.S. 
Government agencies and thirty (30) American private sector companies 
and organizations. The Council will follow the procedures prescribed by 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Meetings 
will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance 
with Section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4), that a 
meeting or a portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. 
Notice of each meeting will be provided in the Federal Register at 
least 15 days prior to the meeting.
    For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security 
Advisory Council, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of 
State, Washington, DC 20522-1003, phone: 202-663-0533.

    October 18, 2000.
Peter E. Bergin,
Director of the Diplomatic Security Service.
[FR Doc. 00-27800 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-24-U
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4759

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ERIC CHRISTOPHER LOCKLEAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-32) Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geoffrey Wuensch Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Eric Christopher Locklear, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. We conclude that Locklear’s notice of appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). The district court, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal an additional thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). Locklear’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment was entered on July 24, 2003. He did not file a notice of appeal until, at the earliest, August 18, 2003, outside the ten-day appeal period. The district court found that Locklear did not show excusable neglect or good cause to excuse the late filing. Thus, Locklear’s appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss Locklear’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: MELISSA WARRICK, IN HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN 

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00255-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Relator’s motion to carry over the reporter’s record from cause 

number 08-13-00186-CR into the above styled and numbered mandamus proceeding. The 

motion is GRANTED. The reporter’s record and supplemental reporter’s record filed in cause 

number 08-13-00186-CR shall be considered filed as a reporter’s record and supplemental 

reporter’s record in cause number 08-13-00255-CR.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rivera, J., not participating)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DEMARIOUS T. CALDWELL
,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 4496

[ March 18, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562009CF003442A

.

Demarious T. Caldwell, Madison, Pro Se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke Robert Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm B each, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Demariou s Caldwell appeals an order striking his rule 3.850 motion as untimely filed.

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed with a citation to a case pending review in the Florida Supreme Court, and Caldwell sought discretionary

review. Caldwell v. State , 86 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The time for filing a rule 3.850 motion was tolled until the Florida Supreme Court dismissed review of the direct appeal proceedings. Mullins v. State , 974 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The state concedes that Cal dwell’s postconviction motion was timely filed and he should have been given leave to correct the pleading deficiencies in his motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to give appellant

leave to amend his motion.

Reversed and Remanded.2

G ROSS

, T

AYLOR and M AY
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
| 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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|            | TELTRONICS, INC.                                   |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|            |                                               |
|            |                                               |
| August 12, 2009 | /s/ Ewen R. Cameron                                |
|            | Ewen R. Cameron                                    |
|            | Director, President and Chief Executive Officer    |
|            |                                               |
|            |                                               |
| August 12, 2009 | /s/ Angela L. Marvin                               |
|            | Angela L. Marvin                                   |
|            | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
From: Thomas Finseth

To: Wang, Daisy

Date: 12/6/2012 10:27 AM

Subject: Fwd: Wabash Valley Power: Non

- CBI Information Submittal

Attachments: WVPA NON

- CBI submittal 12 6 12.pdf

Daisy,

Here are WVPA's comments on the site visit notes. We are expecting to receive a CBI version of their attachments. So the

presentation that is included is considered nonCBI. We will need a CBI version, once we receive it, but only for the attachm ents.

> >> Terry Hogan <t_hogan@wvpa.com> 12/6/2012 9:32 AM >>>

Alicea & Thomas,

Attached are WVPA ’ s edited notes on the 2009 Site Visit along with the non

- CBI portion of the Power Point Presentation (7 slides)

conducted by the Plant Manager at the time of the site visit. I believe this constitutes a timely submittal based on your earlier

email.

If you have questions, please contact me at 317

- 481

- 2839 or t_hogan@wvpa.com.

Terry Hogan

Manager, Environmental Affairs

Wabash Valley Power

The information in t his email is confidential and may be legally privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else

is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,

distribution or any action taken or omit ted to be taken in reliance on it, is

prohibited and may be unlawful. If you believe that you have received this

email in error, please contact the sender. E

- mail transmission cannot be

guaranteed to be secure or error

- free as information could be intercepted,

corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.

The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions

in the contents of this messag e, or for any damage caused by any virus

which arises as a result of e

- mail transmission.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3281 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3281

   To transfer criminal enforcement and investigative authority and 
 functions of certain agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 9, 2013

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To transfer criminal enforcement and investigative authority and 
 functions of certain agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY 
              AND FUNCTIONS TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

    (a) Repeal of EPA Powers.--Section 3063 of title 18, United States 
Code, is repealed.
    (b) Transfer of Authority to FBI.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, any criminal enforcement authority and functions and 
any criminal investigative authority and functions of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall be transferred to the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, except for any criminal enforcement authority 
and functions and any criminal investigative authority and functions 
delegated to State or local law enforcement.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO ACEVEDO-PEREZ, AKA 

Antonio Aguilar-Garcia, AKA Riche 

Garcia-Mendez, AKA Alberto Perez,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70744

Agency No. A088-747-035

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Acevedo-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70744

cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination. 

Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo 

questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), 

and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. 

Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for 

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that AcevedoPerez failed to establish the requisite continuous physical presence for cancellation 

of removal, where he presented inconsistent testimony with no corroboration 

regarding his presence in the United States between 1999 and 2002. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1229a(c)(4)(B)-(C), 1229b(b)(1)(A).

The BIA did not err in its decision not to consider Acevedo-Perez’s 

additional evidence filed for the first time in conjunction with the appeal. Zumel v. 

Lynch, 803 F.3d 463, 475 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Under the regulations, the BIA may not 

make its own findings or rely on its own interpretation of the facts.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

To the extent Acevedo-Perez is challenging the BIA’s denial of his motion 
3 14-70744

to remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, where 

petitioner did not show that the evidence he submitted was previously unavailable. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted 

unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and 

was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former 

hearing.”); see also Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(“The formal requirements for a motion to reopen and a motion to remand are the 

same.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 99(a)


                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 Coastal Financial Corporation, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Michael C. Gerald,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of May 14, 2003.



                                               /s/ Michael C. Gerald
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Michael C. Gerald
                                               President/Chief Executive Officer


                                       29