alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MUNSON v. LYMAN et al.

No. 3963.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 20, 1940.

*551A. T. Folsom, of Wink, amicus curiae.

Klapproth & Hamilton, Stubbeman, Mc-Rae & Sealy, and Whitaker, Perkins & Turpin, all of Midland, and Hubbard & Kerr, of Pecos, all on the trial only, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, upon the suggestion of the amicus curise that the question of receivership involved has become moot, for the reason that the entire controversy has been settled by an agreed judgment in the United States District Court of the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division, it is ordered that the appeal herein be dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1399

To provide that certain new Federal programs shall terminate no later than

5 years after the date of enactment of the law that establishes the programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mr. CUNNINGHAM (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. JACOBS,

Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. KLUG, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. ARMEY, and

Mr. TORKILDSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To provide that certain new Federal programs shall terminate no later than 5 years after the date of enactment

of the law that establishes the programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

5 (b), any Federal program established after the date of en6 actment of this Act shall terminate on the earlier of—

7 (1) any termination date specified for the pro8 gram by the provisions of the Act which authorizes

9 that program; or
2

•HR 1399 IH

1 (2) the date which is 5 years after the date of

2 enactment of such Act.

3 (b) NOT APPLICABLE TO ENTITLEMENTS.—Sub4 section (a) shall not apply to a program that requires a

5 payment by the United States to a person (including a

6 governmental entity) if, under the provisions of the Act

7 that authorizes the program, the United States is obli8 gated to make such payment to any person that meets

9 the eligibility requirements established under the program

10 for such payment.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11147

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jerrell Lee Modica, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-125-1

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jerrell Lee Modica has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Modica has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11147 Document: 00516815723 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
No. 22-11147

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-11147 Document: 00516815723 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2023
Exhibit 10.1

             Material Terms of Verbal Agreement with 7bridge Capital


From May 2002, to May 2004, Asia Payment Systems (HK) Ltd. shared an office with
7bridge Capital.

The key elements of the arrangement were:

     1.   Each company paid 50% of the office costs.

2.   From January to May 2004, Asia Payments paid one-third of the salary
     of one secretarial employee (one-third = HK$5,000 per month).

When lease expired each company arranged its own office accommodation in
separate locations, and no further costs were incurred or shared between them.

The financial details for this arrangement were:

     -    7bridge paid to Asia Payments (HK):

          2003- shared office expenses HK$156,039 (US$20,000)

          2004-shared office expenses HK$73,383.87 (US$9,400)

     -    Asia Payments (HK) paid to 7bridge:

          2003 - shared office deposit HK$30,000 (US$3,846)

          2004 - admin expense (one-third of secretary's salary) HK$20,000
                 (US$2,560)


<PAGE>
### The HONORABLE H. FRANKLIN WATERS, Chief Judge of the United 1 

### States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1715

___________ Marilyn B. Harrison, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Washington Regional Medical * Western District of Arkansas. Center; American National Red * Cross, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees, *

___________ Submitted: April 3, 1997 Filed: April 10, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Marily nHarrison appeals the district court's grant of summar y 1 judgment in favor of the American National Red Cross and Washingto n Regi onal Medical Center on her claim that she contracted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions administered to her at Washington Regiona l Medical Center. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties ' briefs, we conclude s ummary judgment was proper for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough

### -2-

memorandum opinions a nd orders. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Description of Amendment to LNC Employees



 Exhibit 10(d) 
  
 Description of Amendment to Lincoln National Corporation Employees’ Supplemental Pension Benefit Plan, Effective January 1, 1983
(nonqualified pension benefits): 
  
 Effective January 1, 2005:
removal of the existing cap on the amount of annual bonus (50% of bonus in excess of $100,000) that qualifies as compensation eligible for pension benefits.
EXHIBIT 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 2005 Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers 
  
 On March 2, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of General Dynamics
Corporation (the company) approved the 2005 base salaries and 2004 bonus payments for the company’s named executive officers. The named executive officers reflect those individuals identified in the company’s 2005 Annual Proxy Statement.

  
 The table below lists the 2005 annual base salary levels of the company’s
named executive officers. 
  

				
	 Name and Principal
Position                                       
                                        
                                      
 

	  	 2005 Base
 Salary
 (effective 3/21/05)


	 Nicholas D. Chabraja
 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	1,300,000
		
	 Arthur J. Veitch
 Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Combat Systems
	  	$	515,000
		
	 Michael J. Mancuso
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	575,000
		
	 Gerard J. DeMuro
 Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Information Systems and Technology
	  	$	500,000
		
	 David A. Savner
 Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Secretary
	  	$	490,000

  
 On March 2, 2005, the Compensation
Committee also approved the 2004 bonus payments which were previously disclosed in the company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed with the Commission March 4, 2005.
Ka 'Ohana 0 Kalaupapa 

Board of Directors 

Clarence "Boogie" Kahilihiwa 

President 

Pauline Ahulau Chow 

Vice President 

Pauline Ka'iulani Puahala Hess 

Treasurer 

MakiaMalo 

Director 

Gloria Marks 

Director 

Mark Ellis 

Director 

Glenn Harada 

Director 

Sol Kaho'ohalahala 

Director 

Colette Machado 

Director 

Charmaine Woodward 

Director 

Sister Davilyn Ah Chick, OSF 

Director 

Patrick Boland 

Director 

Valerie Monson 

Coordinator and Secretary 

... To Honor and To Perpetuate" 

October 28, 2013 

Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief 

Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jerseys Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Order 2013-10-3, servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii 

Sent via email and US Mail 

Aloha Chief Schlemmer, 

Ka 'Ohana 0 Kalaupapa is a 501-c-3 nonprofit organization made up of Kalaupapa 

residents, family members, descendants and longtime friends of the community. Our 

mission is to advocate for the needs of residents, develop educational programs for the 

public, help descendants learn about their ancestors at Kalaupapa and work in 

collaboration for the preservation of this important history. 

I am writing on behalf of the 'Ohana Board of Directors regarding Order 2013-10-3, 

servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii, to respectfully ask that Makani Kai Airlines be granted 

the Essential Air Service contract to continue offering air service to Kalaupapa. For the 

past two years, Makani Kai has provided exceptional service to the Kalaupapa 

community, their family members who wish to visit them and others who want to 

travel to this remote peninsula that has played such a large part in the history of 

Hawaii. Airfares are affordable, the service provided by the pilots and staff is 

outstanding and the administration works closely with the Kalaupapa community to 

make sure the schedule meets the needs of residents. 

Dependable and affordable air travel is essential for those of us at Kalaupapa where we 

live in a peninsula accessible only by a horse trail down a steep, 3-mile cliff or by small 

airplanes. We rely on air travel for medical appointments, personal business trips, 

family visits and general shopping. 

During the past two years, I can't remember a single complaint about Makani Kai 

Airlines- an amazing accomplishment in the air industry. 

Please grant the Essential Air Service for Kalaupapa commencing January 1, 2014, to 

Makani Kai Airlines to enable them to continue providing this important service to the 

Kalaupapa community and those who wish to visit. 

Respectfully, 

I V~<€/~ ftJr Clarence Kahilihiwa 

President 

P .0. Box 1111 Kalaupapa, Hawai'i 96742 www .kalaupapaohana.org
#### Ex parte BACK.

No. 20384.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1939.

*32Willard Green, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This is an appeal in the matter of a writ of habeas corpus wherein the district judge of Dallas County remanded the relator to the custody of the sheriffs of Hopkins and Hunt Counties, in the event he failed to give bond in the sum of $750, to answer a charge of felony swindling, he being so charged under a valid and legal complaint issued out of the justice of the peace court of precinct No. 1 of said Hopkins County, and he being held under a valid and legal warrant from said court; and also in the event that he failed to enter into good and sufficient bonds in the sum of $250.00 in each of two cases under a valid and legal complaint filed in the justice of the peace court of precinct No. 1, Hunt County, charging misdemeanor swindling, and he being held under a valid and legal warrant from said court.

There are no briefs filed herein, and no statement o,f facts in the record.

Upon the basis of the facts shown herein, this judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0403 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM HOMER MCCLELLAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 7, 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 1 2023

05/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0403
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1129. BIJAN ZAREIAN v. FATEMEH T. ZAREIAN.

On October 18, 2016, Bijan Zareian filed this direct appeal from the trial

court’s entry of a final divorce decree and parenting plan. The Georgia Supreme

Court, however, has appellate jurisdiction over this divorce action.

1

 See Ga. Const.

of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6); Morris v. Morris, 284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670

SE2d 84) (2008). Accordingly,this appeal is herebyTRANSFERRED to the Supreme

Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Pursuant to the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016, the Court of

Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over divorce and alimony casesin which the notice

of appeal was filed on or after January 1, 2017. See OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (5)

(codifying the Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016); Ga. L. 2016, p. 892, § 6-1

(c) (specifying the Act “shall apply to casesin which a notice of appeal or application

to appeal is filed on or after” January 1, 2017.

March 07, 2017

03/07/2017
Exhibit
10.22


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


 


NEORX
CORPORATION


 


KEY
EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment, dated as of March 30, 2005, is entered into by and between
NEORX CORPORATION (the “Company”) and ANNA WIGHT (the “Executive”) with respect
to the Key Executive Severance Agreement between the Company and the Executive
dated as of February 28, 2003 (the “Agreement”) as follows:


 


1.               The first sentence
of Section 1 of the Agreement shall be amended by replacing “ninety (90)
days” with “nine (9) months” in reference to advance notice of nonrenewal in
the future.


 


2.               The third sentence
of Section 5.5 of the Agreement (which relates to offset for other
earnings) shall be deleted in its entirety. 
The words “and Offset” shall be removed from the title of Section 5.5.  The words “and potential reduction” shall be
deleted from Section 5.1(c) of the Agreement.


 


3.               Except as amended
by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full and force effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  NeoRx Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Anna Wight

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Susan D. Berland

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Anna Wight

  	
  Its:  CFO
*OPINION ISSUED AUGUST 16, 2007*

#### STEVE HENDRICK VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-076)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. On February 23, 2007, claimant was traveling on Teays Valley Road in Putnam County when his vehicle struck a hole in the road damaging two tires.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of Teays Valley Road which it failed to maintain properly on the date of this incident.

3. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $256.76.

4. Respondent agrees that the amount of $256.76 for the damages put forth by the claimant is fair and reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of Teays Valley Road on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for his loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $256.76.

Award of $256.76.
AIR-11-388-E

October 22, 2013

 Exemption No. 8429D

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-18023

Kim Durnwirth, Director

Regulatory & Quality System Oversight

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

P.O. Box 3707, MC 67-XC

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Ms. Durnwirth:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8429, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 15, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 8429, as 

amended. That exemption from § 45.29 (b)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR) allows Boeing to affix temporary registration marks that are less than 12 inches tall 

on certain aircraft during production acceptance flights.

In your petition, you indicate there has been no change in the conditions, public interest and 

safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8429, as 

amended, remains valid for this exemption and is in the public interest. We will allow the use 

of “window numbers” at the following locations: (1) Boeing Field; (2) Renton Municipal 

Airport; and (3) Paine Field Everett.
2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8429, as amended, to 

October 31, 2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded, subject to the following conditions 

and limitations:

Conditions and Limitations 

Boeing may exercise the privileges of this exemption only for production acceptance 

flights in new production aircraft manufactured by Boeing and operated under a 

special flight permit.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dorenda D. Baker

Director, Aircraft Certification Service
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald O’Connor, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from *644a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered January 20, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the People failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting as an agent of an undercover officer. Whether a particular defendant has acted only as an agent for the buyer is primarily a factual question for the jury, which may consider such factors as " 'the nature and extent of the relationship between the defendant and the buyer, whether it was the buyer or the defendant who suggested the purchase, whether the defendant has had other drug dealings with this or other buyers or sellers and, of course whether the defendant profited, or stood to profit, from the transaction’ ” *(People v Ortiz,*76 NY2d 446, 449, quoting *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 75, *cert denied*439 US 935).

Here, it was uncontested at trial that neither the defendant nor the undercover police officer knew each other before the transaction. The defendant, seemingly familiar with the drug trade, gave the officer heroin and took her money in return. Enough evidence was adduced at trial for a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was simply a streetwise peddler of drugs attempting to avoid the penalties for sale *(see, People v Cruz,*161 AD2d 659; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Although there were some minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses, it is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining arguments, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program

2020 Program Mechanics

Advisory Committee on Risk-Sharing Mechanisms

September 30, 2019

Federal Insurance Office

September 2019

1
Office of Domestic Finance

TRIP Overview: Federal Share in 2020

Conditions for Treasury Payment 

 Certification of act of terrorism (which must result 

in at least $5M in insured losses)

 Program Trigger: No Treasury payment unless 

aggregate insured losses, of all insurers, during a 

calendar year exceed $200M (which has 

increased by $20M per year since the last 

reauthorization)

 Insurer Deductible: 20% of direct earned 

premiums (DEP) for TRIP-eligible lines of prior 

year

Limit on Treasury’s Liability

 Co-Pay: Treasury pays 80% of losses above 

deductible (a decrease from 85% in 2015); 

insurers pay 20% (an increase from 15%) 

 Program Cap: Treasury and insurers have no 

obligations after combined losses reach $100B Non-Certified*

No Federal Payment*

Federal Share 

80%

Insurer Deductible: 20% of DEP 

Insurer

Co-Pay 

20%

tart of 

deral Share

$200M

$5M

$100B

*These amounts will be included in insurer 

deductible and federal payment calculations once 

the Program Trigger is reached

S

Fe

2
Office of Domestic Finance

TRIP Overview: Recoupment 

Recoupment 

 Recoupment is the statutory process by which 

Treasury recovers some or all of the payments it 

expends after a certified act of terrorism. 

 Treasury recoups expenditures by imposing a 

charge on all commercial policyholders in the 

United States, which is collected and remitted to 

Treasury by insurers.

 Treasury is required by statute to recoup 

expended funds up to the Insurance Marketplace 

Aggregate Retention Amount (IMARA). The 

IMARA is set by statute at $37.5B for 2019; 

beginning in 2020 it will be calculated based upon 

the average aggregate insurer deductibles over 

the prior three years.

 Above the IMARA, it is within the Secretary’s 

discretion whether to recoup Treasury payments.

Recoupment Mechanics

 TRIP requires mandatory recoupment below the 

IMARA to be made at a 140% rate

 Discretionary recoupment, if made, is at a 100% 

rate and subject to certain percentage limitations 

on a yearly basis 

Mandatory Recoupment

(Federal Share x 140%)

Insurer Deductible: 20% of DEP 

Insurer

Co-Pay 

20%

Start of 

Federal Share

$100B

No Federal Payment

Discretionary Recoupment

(Federal Share x 100%)

IMARA

3