alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


 


SENIOR HOUSING
PROPERTIES TRUST


 


Summary of Trustee
Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective
compensation of the trustees of Senior Housing Properties Trust (the “Company”)
for services as trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the
Board of Trustees.  The following is
unchanged from the compensation described in the Company’s proxy statement for
its annual meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held on May 10, 2005.


 


•                  Each
independent trustee is entitled to receive an annual fee of $20,000, plus a fee
of $500 for each meeting attended.  Up to
two $500 fees are payable if a board meeting and one or more board committee
meetings are held on the same date.


 


•                  The
chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the
nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an independent trustee,
are entitled to receive an additional annual fee of $5,000, $1,000 and $1,000,
respectively.


 


•                  Each
independent trustee is entitled to receive a grant of 1,000 of the Company’s
common shares of beneficial interest on the date of each annual meeting of
shareholders (or, for trustees who are first elected or appointed at other
times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).


 


•                  The
Company generally reimburses all trustees for travel expenses incurred in
connection with their duties as trustees.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By notice dated June 29, 2000, and published in the Federal 
Register on July 14, 2000, (65 FR 43785), Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 3801 
St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphetamine (1100).........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments or objections have been received. The firm plans to 
bulk manufacture amphetamine and methamphetamine to produce products 
for distribution to its customers.
    DEA has considered the factors in title 21, United States Code, 
section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Chattem 
Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed controlled substances is 
consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated 
Chattem Chemicals, Inc. on a regular basis to ensure that the company's 
continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These 
investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, audits of the company's records, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the 
application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above 
is granted.

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-30937 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-050-00-1150-JB; 6636]


Arizona: Availability of the Draft Sonoran Pronghorn Forage 
Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment (EA), Yuma and Phoenix 
Field Offices

AGENCY:  Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the draft Sonoran Pronghorn Forage 
Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment (EA), Yuma and Phoenix 
Field Offices.

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

SUMMARY:  The draft Sonoran Pronghorn Forage Enhancement Project 
Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental impacts of a 
proposed project to improve habitat for the endangered Sonoran 
pronghorn on the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range. The Sonoran 
pronghorn was listed as an endangered subspecies in 1967. Since that 
time, numbers of the animal in the United States have been estimated to 
fluctuate between 100 and 400 animals. The population appears to be 
limited by low recruitment of fawns into the population. Most fawns die 
each year in late June and early July when the availability of green 
forage decreases. The proposed forage enhancement project would provide 
forage for pronghorn on up to 14 plots. The plots would provide native 
forage for pronghorn and a source of free water to aid in digestion. 
The plots would not be permanently established and are not meant to 
interfere with the normal seasonal movements of pronghorn. The project 
would be jointly carried out by the Arizona Game and Fish Department, 
Luke Air Force Base, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, and the Bureau of 
Land Management.

DATES:  Comments on the draft Environmental Assessment will be accepted 
through March 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available upon 
request to: Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, 2555 East Gila 
Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365. There are also copies available for 
review at that location and at the Yuma County Library, 350 South Third 
Avenue, Yuma, Arizona, 85364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Wildlife Biologist Susanna Henry, 
Bureau of Land Management, 2555 East Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona, 
85365, telephone (520) 317-3211.

    Dated: January 31, 2000.
Gail Acheson,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-3106 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS INS. ASS’N v. MOSER.

No. 10942.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 25, 1940.

Kemp, Lewright, Dyer, Wilson & Sor-rell, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

H. K. Stanfield, of Corpus Christi, and Charles J. Lieck, of San Antonio, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Appellee has filed his motion for leave to withdraw the original transcript from the files in order that certain allegedly incorrect bills of exception may be substituted with corrected bills; or, in the alternative, for writ of certiorari to bring up supplemental transcript embracing corrected bills to be considered in lieu of the original bills. Appellant is contesting the motion. The motion, and the reply, each lias attached to it a certificate of the trial judge reciting, in the first, that certain bills of exception in the filed transcript are incorrect and should be qualified as indicated in the certificate; and, in the second, that the qualifications first certified are themselves incorrect in named particulars and should be amended. The controversy is confused and confusing, and it is to be regretted that the learned trial judge was put, or got, into positions where he felt obliged, ,in order to be fair to the parties alike, to discredit by materially qualifying, in successive and inconsistent certificates, first, original bills of exception which the parties had purportedly agreed to and he had formally approved and ordered filed as a part of the record, and, second, by qualifying the first qualifications. ■

We overrule the motion for leave to withdraw the original transcript, but grant the motion for certiorari, in order that after a full hearing these controversies may be finally settled into final bills of exception, finally approved by the trial judge.

Motion for leave to withdraw transcript is overruled; motion granted for certiorari directing the clerk of the trial court to send up a supplemental transcript including any substitute bills of exception which the trial judge may approve and order filed as a part of the record in this cause; provided such supplemental transcript is tendered in this court on or. before October 10, 1940.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FENGMIN CAO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73996

Agency No. A087-431-483

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

 Fengmin Cao, a native and citizen of China, 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 asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on omissions in Cao’s asylum application and written statement and

inconsistencies in his testimony regarding a police beating, a requirement to report

to the police once a month, going into hiding, and applying for a marriage permit. 

See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (omitted incidents of

arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding); Shrestha, 590 F.3d

at 1048 (totality of the circumstances supported adverse credibility determination). 

In the absence of credible testimony, Cao’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Cao’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not

credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more

likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. 

See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-73996
#### Ex parte J. L. BUSHIEY.

No. 16959.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

The application herein is in all respects the same as that found in Ex parte Lee Burns, 72 S.W.(2d) 244.

For the reason stated in the opinion in that case, the writ herein requested is denied.
#### Abe BERLOWITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21527.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 19, 1941.

Clark & Seley, of Waco, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of cattle, punishment 'being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

Since the jurisdiction of this court attached appellant has filed here his affidavit advising the court that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal and at his request said appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Clarke, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kellam, J.), rendered November 12, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*687Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, he was not denied his constitutional and statutory right to a jury in whose selection he had a voice. The record reveals that prior to the completion of jury selection, a sworn juror was discharged because he had disregarded the court’s admonitions by speaking to the Assistant District Attorney involved in the case. Noting on the record that the juror had proven himself incapable of following the most basic of its instructions, the court discharged the juror. Under these circumstances, the court permissibly exercised its discretion pursuant to CPL 270.15 (3) in determining that the juror’s conduct constituted grounds justifying his discharge. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                               DIGENE CORPORATION
 
                  STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     DECEMBER 31,                 DECEMBER 31,
                                               ------------------------    --------------------------
                                                  1996          1995          1996           1995
                                               -----------    ---------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                            <C>            <C>          <C>            <C>
Earnings per share:
Weighted average shares of Common Stock
  outstanding...............................    11,312,446      372,682     11,310,665        369,427
Shares of 1994 Series Preferred Stock issued
  during the twelve month period prior to
  March 29, 1996, the date of the filing of
  the Company's Registration Statement on
  Form S-1 (using the treasury stock
  method)...................................            --      192,607             --        192,607
Shares of Common Stock issued during the
  twelve month period prior to March 29,
  1996, the date of the filing of the
  Company's Registration Statement on Form
  S-1 (using the treasury stock method).....            --        5,295             --          5,295
Common equivalent shares from options and
  warrants issued during the twelve month
  period prior to March 29, 1996, the date
  of the filing of the Company's
  Registration Statement on Form S-1 (using
  the treasury stock method)................            --      283,666             --        283,666
                                               -----------    ---------    -----------    -----------
Total.......................................    11,312,446      854,250     11,310,665        850,995
                                                ==========    =========     ==========     ==========
Loss for the period.........................   $(1,171,671)   $(563,172)   $(1,904,412)   $(1,099,669)
                                                ==========    =========     ==========     ==========
Net loss per share..........................   $     (0.10)   $   (0.66)   $     (0.17)   $     (1.29)
                                                ==========    =========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
 
                                       11
#### POLLARD v. STATE.

No. 15854.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1933.

P. G. Stanford, of Plains, and R. L. Graves, of Brownfield, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction in the county court of misdemeanor theft; punishment, a fine of $10. .

*140We are met at the beginning of our consideration of this case with the fact that the record contains no information. We find two copies of complaints, but, if there was any information presented, same is omitted from the transcript. All prosecutions originating in county courts for violations of criminal statutes are necessarily by information supported by a valid complaint. We uniformly hold that, if the information be not copied in the transcript, the ease must be reversed. Etheridge v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 41, 172 S. W. 784; Id., 76 Tex. Cr. R. 43, 172 S.W. 786; Id., 76 Tex. Cr. R. 473, 175 S. W. 702. In the last-mentioned case many authorities are cited appearing in Branch’s Annotated P. O. § 520, supporting the proposition that, in a prosecution for a misdemeanor in the county courts, there must be an information which is based upon a complaint, and that, when there is no information, such prosecution cannot be maintained. It is possible that there was a proper information, and that same has been omitted from the record through inadvertence, and, if so, this' error can be corrected upon motion for rehearing. The prosecution will not be ordered dismissed, because, if there was a valid complaint originally filed in the county court, there can still be filed a valid information predicated on such complaint.

Eor the absence of an information, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
#### J. C. GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee (two cases).

Nos. 16071, 16074.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1933.

Hughes *&*Monroe, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for rohhery; punishment, five yeai's in the penitentiary.

The record is here without statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-1312

April 24, 2015

Mr. David M. Gunn

Beck Redden LLP

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500

Houston, TX 77010-2010

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Mr. Dan Pozza

Law Offices of Dan Pozza

239 East Commerce Street

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Lisa Erin Hobbs

Kuhn Hobbs PLLC

3307 Northland Drive Suite 310

Austin, TX 78731

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 13-0978

Court of Appeals Number: 04-13-00043-CV

Trial Court Number: 7459

Style: JLG TRUCKING, LLC

v.

LAUREN R. GARZA

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in the abovereferenced cause. You may obtain a copy of the opinion and judgment through Case Search on

our Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/supreme.aspx. On the Case Search page

simply enter the case number and push the Search button to find the docket page for your case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

cc: Mr. Keith E. Hottle (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Ms. Dora Mtz. Castanon

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knoll, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Andrew B.
Cogan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|November 9, 2009       
|                       
|/s/ Andrew B. Cogan    
|Andrew B. Cogan        
|Chief Executive Officer
1 

### Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Stacie Enoch [Stacie.Enoch@erg.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:09 AM

To: Palma.Ted@epamail.epa.gov; Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa. gov; Darcy Wilson

Cc: Manning.Elaine@epamail.epa.gov; Pope.Anne@epamail.e pa.gov; Reeves, David; Schaffner, Karen S. Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fw: NEIDE0050093 location

John Outten with the state of DE returned my call t his morning about NEIDE0050093. He said the facili ty is supposed to plot in the middle of the bay. It's a lightering o peration. He said EPA asks him about it every year . He said 2005 wasn't a good year (I think by that he means the em issions were high), but that the emissions we have from the state should be correct. Let me know if you need anythin g else.

Thanks,

Stacie

Stacie P. Enoch

ERG

1600 Perimeter Park Drive Morrisville, NC 27560 (919) 468-7895

>>> Darcy Wilson 5/25/2010 2:49 PM >>> We're trying to reach the DE contact. No luck so f ar today.

>>> <Palma.Ted@epamail.epa.gov> 5/25/2010 2:46 PM > >> I may have missed it but has anyone on this list go tten anywhere with the location of this facility?

Ted Palma USEPA/OAQPS/HEID/SBAG

MD C539-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

palma.ted@epa.gov

919-541-5470 919-541-0840 (fax)

From: Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Anne Pope/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Darcy Wilson" <Darcy.Wilson@erg.com> , dwreeves@rti.org, "Karen Schaffner" <ksschaffner@ rti.org>,

"Stacie Enoch" <Stacie.Enoch@erg.com>, Ted Pa lma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/24/2010 12:25 PM

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fw: NEIDE0050093 locatio n2 Anne, can you call the state person on this one

Stephen Shedd, Coatings and Chemicals Group, (E143- 01) Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tria ngle Park, NC 27707

Voice: 919 541-5397 Fax: 919 685-3195

From: "Darcy Wilson" <Darcy.Wilson@erg.com>

To: Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted Pal ma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Anne Pope/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Darcy Wilson" <Darcy.Wilson@erg.com> , "Stacie Enoch" <Stacie.Enoch@erg.com>, <dwreeves@ rti.org>,

"Karen Schaffner" <ksschaffner@rti.org>

Date: 05/24/2010 09:46 AM

Subject: Fwd: Re: Fw: NEIDE0050093 location

Hi everyone--Stacie didn't find anything in additio n to what Ted found for the address and latlons in NEI/NATA. She check ed Envirofacts and didn't find anything better. She checked TRI and d idn't find the facility at all. And she looked in Google Earth an d wasn't sure where the marine vessel loading facility really should be

.

Is this a facility that RTI is familiar with?

Darcy

>>> <Pope.Anne@epamail.epa.gov> 5/24/2010 6:56 AM > >>

----- Forwarded by Anne Pope/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/24/ 2010 06:55 AM -----

From: Ted Palma/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA