alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5
                
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jul-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            Aug-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                              Apr-30-1998
<CASH>                                       816,000                          
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                   78,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             996,000
<PP&E>                                       417,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               154,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,553,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        877,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      22,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   634,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,533,000
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             (3,158,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (23,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            26,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (3,161,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (3,161,000)       
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (3,161,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.16)
          
               
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CHARLES EDWARD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:2!-CV-753-P 

FROT WORTH CITY HALL 

Defendant. 

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL AND RETURNING CASE TO DISTRICT 

JUDGE 

Pro se Plaintiff Charles Edward Scott ("Scott") filed the above-styled and numbered case 

on August 26, 2022 [ doc. 1]. Also on August 26, 2022, Scott filed his Motion for Leave to 

Proceed informa pauperis [doc. 3]. Thereafter, on October 3, 2022, the Court entered an Order 

and Notice of Deficiency [doc. 7], ordering Scott, no later than October 17, 2022, to either pay 

the $402.00 filing and administrative fee or file an amended application to proceed in forma 

pauperis providing full and accurate information. As of the date of this Order, Scott has failed to 

do either. Consequently, the Court RECCOMENDS that the above-styled and numbered cause 

be DISMISSED for failing to comply with the Comt's Order. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the right to serve and file 

specific wlitten objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate 

Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the 

party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States Distlict Judge need only 

make a de nova determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b )(I). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a 

Case 4:22-cv-00753-P Document 9 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 25
proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error 

or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto 

Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute on other grounds, 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until 

November 8, 2022, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections 

are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within 

seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred 

to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and 

SIGNED October 18, 2022. 

RETON 

ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00753-P Document 9 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 26
# Banks 03-31-11

* For the four banks that closed on SBLF funding prior to July 1, 2011, the information reported on their initial supplemental reports (and on this report) is as of December 31, 2010 		Page &P of &N

# Banks 06-30-11

Page &P of &N

# CDLFs 03-31-11

# CDLFs 06-30-11

Page &P of &N

# image1.png
Exhibit 10.1 Kaminski Letter 08.25.15


		
			Exhibit 10.1
		

		
			LANDAUER
		

		
			August 25, 2015     
		

		
			 
		

		
			Michael Kaminski
		

		
			[Address]
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dear Michael:
		

		
			 
		

		
			This letter is intended to memorialize our recent discussions regarding changes to your compensation in connection with your upcoming promotion to President and Chief Executive Officer of Landauer, Inc. (“Landauer”), reporting to the Board of Directors of Landauer (the “Board”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			You will become President and Chief Executive Officer of Landauer effective October 1, 2015.  Your compensation will remain at its current levels through September 30, 2015.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			The following summarizes the terms and conditions of your compensation, effective October 1, 2015:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Annual Cash Compensation.  Your annual base salary will be increased to $525,000, paid bi-weekly at a rate of $20,192.31.  You will have the opportunity to earn an annual bonus with a target incentive bonus opportunity of 50% of base salary. The performance measures applicable to your bonus and the certification of whether these measures have been satisfied will be undertaken by the Compensation Committee of the Board.  Your bonus, if any, will be paid in December following the end of the applicable fiscal year.  




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Annual Long-Term Incentive Award.  You will be eligible to receive long-term incentive awards in the form of performance-based restricted stock under Landauer’s Long-Term Incentive program. Your target long term incentive opportunity will be 130% of base salary.  




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 ·
			

			
	
			
			Benefits, Vacation & Non-Qualified Excess Plan.  You will continue to be eligible to participate in Landauer’s employee benefit plans and programs, including the Landauer, Inc. Non-Qualified Excess Plan, the Landauer, Inc. Executive Severance Plan and the Landauer, Inc. Executive Special Severance Plan, subject to the terms of such plans and programs as they may be amended from time to time.  Landauer will contribute to the Non-Qualified Excess Plan 7.5% of the salary paid to you during your employment through the end of each fiscal year.  You will be entitled to four (4) weeks of paid vacation annually, subject to the terms of Landauer’s vacation policy.  




		
			 
		

		
			Your signature below indicates your acceptance of this position with Landauer.  The executed document may be returned via PDF file (email) or faxed to Kathy Bober, Director of Human Resources at [___].  Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [___] during the day or on my cell at [___]. 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Sincerely,
		

		
			 
		

		
			/s/ Bill Dempsey
		

		
			 
		

		
			Bill Dempsey
		

		
			Chair of the Compensation Committee of the Board
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Accepted:/s/ Michael KaminskiDated: August 25, 2015
		

		
			Michael Kaminski
		

		 


		

			Landauer, Inc.   2 Science Road   Glenwood, Illinois 60425-1586   Telephone: (708) 755-7000   Facsimile: (708) 755-7011
# Official Journal L 74/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.074.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 74 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5322 March 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.074.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 74

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5322 March 2010

---

| Contents | | Corrigenda | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009) | 1 |

Contents

Corrigenda

page

*

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations (OJ L 131, 28.5.2009)

OJ L 131, 28.5.2009

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
|   | (1) | the      10-Q 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 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                          |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/  Laurence      P. Birch                                                                                                         |   |
|   |   | Laurence      P. Birch                                                                                                                        |   |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) andActing      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                          |   |
Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 1 of 25   PageID 9

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 2 of 25   PageID 10

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 3 of 25   PageID 11

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 4 of 25   PageID 12

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 5 of 25   PageID 13

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 6 of 25   PageID 14

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 7 of 25   PageID 15

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 8 of 25   PageID 16

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 9 of 25   PageID 17

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 10 of 25   PageID 18

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 11 of 25   PageID 19

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 12 of 25   PageID 20

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 13 of 25   PageID 21

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 14 of 25   PageID 22

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 15 of 25   PageID 23

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 16 of 25   PageID 24

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 17 of 25   PageID 25

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 18 of 25   PageID 26

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 19 of 25   PageID 27

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 20 of 25   PageID 28

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 21 of 25   PageID 29

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 22 of 25   PageID 30

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 23 of 25   PageID 31

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 24 of 25   PageID 32

Case 4:22-cv-00781-O   Document 1-3   Filed 09/01/22    Page 25 of 25   PageID 33
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1247

___________

Ernest Kramme, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Safelite Group, Inc.; Safelite *

Fulfillment, Inc.; Safelite Glass * [UNPUBLISHED]

Corporation; Safelite Autoglass, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 6, 2008

Filed: June 11, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ernest Kramme appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

on his claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After

reviewing the record de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from

in a light most favorable to Kramme, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520
-2-

(8th Cir. 2002), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 34

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
     respect to the expenditure of money to elect public officials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

    Mr. Jacobs introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
     respect to the expenditure of money to elect public officials.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    The expenditure of money for the election of public officials is 
not protected speech under the first amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States.''.

                                 <all>
```
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA- R07 - OAR- 2010 - 0011 ; FRL __________] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan ; State of Iowa AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION : Proposed rule. SUMMARY : EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP ) submitted by the S tate on April 2 8 , 2009 . The purpose of the se revisions is to update existing air quality rules ; make corrections, clarifications and improvements; and to add i nformation with regard to the application of permit exemptions . EPA is proposing to approve the SIP re visions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act . DATES : Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by [ insert date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register ]. ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA- R0 7 - OAR- 2010 - 0011 , by mail to Tracey Casburn , Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 90 1 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Registe r.2

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Tracey Casburn a t (913) 551 - 7 016 , or by e -mail at casburn.tracey @epa.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : In the final rules section of the Federal Register , EPA is approving the state’s revision as a direct f inal rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no releva nt adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addres sed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in t he rules section of this Federal Register . Dated:

__February 23, 2010 .

_____ _ /s/ Karl Brooks

____ Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1309/2006

of 31 August 2006         

fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 15(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 which is applicable to export refunds fixed in advance except for malt shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 31 August 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 31 August 2006 fixing the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7565

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus ALVIN HOUSTON, Lieutenant; B. FORD, Sergeant; R. GANT, Sergeant; W. PINKETT, Correctional Officer II; D. CHASE, Correctional Officer II; M. STEVENSON, Correctional Officer II, A. SMITH, Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-7566

TOMMY RAY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versusALVIN HOUSTON, Lieutenant; BERNARD FORD, Sergeant; DION PINKETT, Correctional Officer II; DARRICK CHASE, Correctional Officer II; MAURICE STEVENSON, Correctional Officer II; REGINALD GANT, Sergeant; EUGENE NUTH, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary; J. OWENS, Property Room Officer; OFFICER SMITTY; OTHER UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, et al, Defendants - Appellees.2 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1298-AMD, CA-96-896-AMD, CA-96-1388-AMD) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 25, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Ray Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, ToniJean Lisa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Tommy Ray Robinson appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law in his action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, as supported by its reasons as stated from the bench, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Houston, Nos. CA-96-1298-AMD; CA96-896-AMD; CA-96-1388-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2000). We deny Robinson’s motion for a transcript at governmentexpense because he has failed to establish grounds for the transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We also deny Robinson’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 127979 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, VILLAGE OF NEWBERRY, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 127979 

 COA: 252052 

Luce CC: 99-002860-CZ 

MCMILLAN TOWNSHIP and PENTLAND 

TOWNSHIP, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk