alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.16


                             AMERICAN RE CORPORATION

November 25, 1996

Mr. Edward B. Jobe
32 Vreeland Court
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Dear Ed:

This letter will confirm the terms on which you have agreed to continue to
provide consulting services to American Re Corporation or successor
organization.

For the period from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1997 you agree to
provide various consulting services, from time to time, under my direction and
as I may request. We have agreed that these services may involve up to 50% of
your work-time over the course of the year.

As consideration for these services, American Re will pay you an annual fee of
$250,000 payable in equal monthly installations of $20,833.33 on the last day of
each month. Other reasonable expenses related to your performance of services
for American Re, if approved in advance, will also be reimbursed.

American Re agrees to indemnify and hold you harmless against any and all
claims, damages, costs, expenses and suits related to your performance of
services for American Re, except those arising out of your intentional
misconduct or gross negligence.

You may terminate this agreement at any time upon 90 days written notice to
American Re. American Re may terminate this agreement only in the event of
fraud, intentional misconduct, gross negligence, or your inability to perform
due to death or disability.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign the agreement in the space provided
below and return it to my attention.

As you know, I am pleased that I can continue my association with you both
personally and professionally.

Sincerely,

/s/ Paul H. Inderbitzin
------------------------
Paul H. Inderbitzin

Accepted and Agreed:       /s/ Edward B. Jobe, Dated  November 25, 1996
                           ------------------
                           Edward B. Jobe

cc:      Robert Burgess
         Barbara Carroll
         Robert Humes
•• 

Mr. S..l :a. Willi•• 

Nat1oaal See\IJ"ity Af,e'JJ.t:y 

REF ID:A4158 • 

. Ser1alt S7 R' q7~s1 

Ottlce of lteletll'Ch ud Developaent 

lleu' Mr· W1llian9: 

'l'be D!rectc)r baa 1ntone4 • tbat YCRl ba'Ve accepted hi• 

invitation t.o be • ~ ot t!le ~ctrcmica Panel ot the Hat1oml 

84tc\lrit7 AflmC1 Sc1eut1tic Mviac17· Jot.rd. Aa Bxeeutive Seo1'eta7 

ot the Im.rd.,. I V1sb to •lftt•• tbe .Dlrecto1"' a gratlt1Cati.Oll1 u · well ae Pl/ penoaal tbuJU, tar 10U3' ~acceptance, •W. it 

i& indicative or 1CNr inteftlt in an4 1'oui' eniate or the 1apor· 

tance ot tbe l>l'Oble• With vb:lch w JllUSt eaatend 1n tbe :lnterest 

of \be ne.t1oml dd'enae •. 

The next meting ot the AdV1IOJ'1 br<\ 1t18lt will be i'Jeld 

l<lllttlme thil eprtag. At that time :t.t 11 ttlteJMSecl t1-t a "Port 

Oil tbe panel lllllbez'ahlp vUl be au\h.1.tte4 to the brd,, talje·ther 

Yith sore problema tbl.t cu be ntened for S»eeitlc panel •.ction. 

SUbaequent to tbia Board ..iaa, the panel chairllen, vbo an &lao 

· mellbef'• Of tha Baud, vill be able to coater with you on •tten 

·ot panel orge.ni!f.t1on and f\ltwe ~cttv1t1ee. 

cc: · AG 

·c/s 

S/PSST 

Sineezrelyt 

WILLIAM F. FR~ 

Spec1Q.l Aa•1etant 

aDd 

Executive Secret&l'f • 

ftSASO 

M/R: Acknowledgment ot Mr. w:111 iams' acceptance ot the Director's 

invitation to be a member of the NSASAB's Electronics Panel. 

FJrioUZJ8/S/ ASST/6o493/2 Feb 54 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 12-01-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352e
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6656
RANDALL DUFF, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-155-AM) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Duff, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Duff v. Angelone , No. CA-98-155-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 11, 2015.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 15, 2015 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for 
reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 
20503, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#357a7c67746a664057585c46465c5a5b757a78771b707a651b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87c8ced5c6d8d4f2e5eaeef4f4eee8e9c7c8cac5a9c2c8d7a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA 
Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 8140, Washington, 
DC 20220, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e2e2c3f3e0a0c1b1f0d0b0c0750191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d7d7f6c6d595f484c5e585f54034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cc9c9e8d8cb8bea9adbfb9beb5e2aba3ba"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e4e4c5f5e6a6c7b7f6d6b6c6730797168">[email protected]</span></a>, or the 
entire information collection request may be found at www.reginfo.gov.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0939.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement without change of a previously 
approved collection.
    Title: Interest Charge on DISC-Related Deferred Tax Liability.
    Form: 8404.
    Abstract: Shareholders of Interest Charge Domestic International 
Sales Corporations (IC-DISCs) use Form 8404 to figure and report an 
interest charge on their DISC-related deferred tax liability. The 
interest charge is required by Internal Revenue Code section 995(f) and 
the IRS uses Form 8404 to determine whether the shareholder has 
correctly figured and paid the interest charge on a timely basis.
    Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 15,580.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-05904 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-35-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CORY J. YOKUM,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-11-00357-CR

Appeal from

90th District Court

of Young County, Texas

(TC # 09303)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cory J. Yokum appeals his conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact.1 See 

TEX.PEN.CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(1)(West 2011). Appellant pled guilty to the offense and was 

sentenced to serve eight years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division 

together with a $5,000 fine. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

as counsel along with a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), 

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why, in effect, there are 

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); 

Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). In his motion 

 

1

 This is a companion case to cause number 08-11-00356-CR. Appellant was charged by two separate indictments, 

both alleging indecency with a child by sexual contact offenses under Texas Penal Code, section 21.11(a)(1). The 

offenses alleged were against the same victim and occurred on or about the same date.
- 2 -

to withdraw, counsel avers that copies of his brief and motion have been delivered to Appellant, 

and that Appellant has been advised of his right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been 

filed. 

After thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree with counsel’s 

professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The record reflects that 

Appellant freely and voluntarily pled guilty to the offense. Not only did Appellant plead guilty 

in open court, but a “Guilty Plea Memorandum,” which included a waiver of jury trial and a 

stipulation of evidence, was signed by Appellant and entered into evidence. At the guilty plea 

hearing, the trial court properly admonished Appellant, and defense counsel thoroughly 

questioned him regarding his understanding about the nature and consequences of his plea. 

Moreover, during Appellant’s punishment hearing testimony regarding the incident, he 

reaffirmed his guilty plea and admitted each and every element of the offense.

Because there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further 

discussion of the arguable grounds advanced in counsel’s brief would add nothing to the 

jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the 

trial court’s judgment. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009).

November 28, 2012 _______________________________________________

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

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

(Do Not Publish)
<PAGE> 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors and Stockholders of JumboSports Inc.

In  connection  with  our  audit of the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
JumboSports  Inc.,  as of January  31,  1997 and for the year ended  January 31,
1997,  which  consolidated  financial  statements are included by reference into
this report,  we have also audited the financial  statement  schedule  listed in
Item 99 herein.

In our opinion,  this financial statement schedule,  when considered in relation
to the  basic  consolidated  financial  statements  taken as a whole,  presents,
fairly,  in all  material  respects,  the  information  required  to be included
therein.


                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Tampa, Florida
March 21, 1997


                                     E-21
. ' . . .

. . 

REF ID:A27iij91 

,., 

9 January 1945 

The Honorable Commissioner of Patents, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Commissioner: 

It is requested that the patent application of 

Willi<m F. Friedman for CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEM, filed 25 July 

19JJ, Serial No. 682,096, be continued under the provisions of 

Section 4894 Revised Statutes (35 u.s.c. J7), as amended. 

The entire rir,ht, title and interest in and to this 

invention has been assigned to the Government of the United States 

and the instrument covering this assignment has been recorded in 

the United States Patent Office under date of 17 September 1936 

us -208-209. 

It has been determined that this invention is important 

to the armament and defense of tho United States, and the War 

Department desires that this application be again accorded the 

benefit of this statute. 

Sir1cerely yours, 

/s/ Henry L. Stimson 

Secretary of liar 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

..
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2128 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2128

     To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and 
    Efficiency to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General 
                               mandates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2015

  Mr. Sasse (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and 
    Efficiency to submit to Congress a report on Inspector General 
                               mandates.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Inspector General Mandates Reporting 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``reporting 
requirement'' means a report that an Office of Inspector General is 
required to complete under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) or any other provision of law.
    (b) Report by Inspectors General to CIGIE.--Not later than 60 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, each Office of Inspector 
General shall submit to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity 
and Efficiency a report, which--
            (1) shall include a list of each reporting requirement for 
        the Office of Inspector General; and
            (2) may include a list of each reporting requirement that 
        the Office of Inspector General recommends should be modified 
        or repealed.
    (c) Report by CIGIE to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the 
date on which the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and 
Efficiency receives the reports required to be submitted under 
subsection (a), the Council shall submit to Congress a report, which--
            (1) shall include--
                    (A) a list of each reporting requirement that is 
                common to more than 1 Office of Inspector General; and
                    (B) a list, by Office of Inspector General, of each 
                reporting requirement that is unique to that Office of 
                Inspector General; and
            (2) may include recommendations for reporting requirements 
        that should be modified or repealed.
    (d) Form.--Each report submitted under this section shall be in 
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
                                 <all>
```
-

ii.-

..,._ 

~ 

~ 

:~ --~-- - - - -

.REF ID :A68194__ 

SECRET 

stet!RllY \NF6RM~1\ett 

!!!!! ""59Sildl !JiPa!Ytft !i 

Bzte Mwln I.." Speabma 

:.:,;:'l'-~l)fn4~nt :Jo.int 

!!18 ~·,. ~ Y1~0 1Msh1Jrgt-.:in 2>, tr. c. 

ltiWtdi 

- -- ~-=..¥-_ 

llli49Ml l:: ~ cm ot nr. ~"'-t ~ •bJ.:lJ which 'be pl'Qpared at. ~ teq:;ee\ &a ""1~-1~ ~ ~t. ot hl' ~ COil~ ~proposed 

Ctf1~ of JisM~ fer il:J.s Apa071 \be W'WU.'!h:int. of illlch .. l9)itfl4(!11doct 1c ~o 5~0 Report. 

l~o~ 

-· fftlm :?'., T, "'nes1inn 

10 WwF .~, dtd 15 Jae 52• 

C1••1N..d ~~1' • 

\ ·. 

. :· SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-13-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

.... . 

i 

! 

I
99-1055.

#### State v. Beckett.

Lucas App. No. L-98-1349. On motion for stay of appeal pending court of appeals’ decision in pending direct appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., not participating.
Second Amendment to Annual Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.6 
 Second Amendment to the 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

CME GROUP INC. ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN 
 1. Section 5(c) is amended by replacing it in its entirety with the following: 
 (c) Time and Form of Payment. All payments in respect of Awards granted under this Plan shall be made in cash or, to the extent consented to by the Participant or determined by the Committee
at the time an Award is granted, in whole or in part in Common Stock issued under the CME Group Inc. Amended and Restated Omnibus Stock Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”) and valued at its Fair Market Value (as defined in the Omnibus Plan) on the
date of payment. Any such payment shall be made within two and one-half (2 1/2) months after the end of the Performance Period, but in no event shall such payments be made later than December 31 of the year after the end of the Performance Period. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this 25th
day of April, 2011. 
  

			
	By:	 	  /s/ Kathleen M. Cronin


 Its: /s/ Managing Director, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.
Inthe Matter ofNortheastern Aviation Corp., Respondent FAA DocketNo. FAA-2014-0206 Case No. 2011EA110045 Judge Sullivan AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT The Agency, under 14 CFR Section 13.215 and pursuant to a settlement agreement, withdraws its Complaint in this matter. Respectfully submitted, PeterJ. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for En By: Attorn y Federal viation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel EnforcementDivision, Nmiheast Team 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 T: 718-553-3278 F: 718-995-5699 E: Camille.Castillo@FAA.GOV

1 Dated: 

## APR 12 2016



# RECEIVED APR 

## t 82016 

## HEARING DOCKe:TCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on this day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mail and fax as follows: Judge J. E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536 I hereby certifY that on this day copies of the foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mail and email as follows: Mr. Edward J. Longosz, TI Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC 1717 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW, 12trh Floor Washington, DC 20006 ELongosz@eckeJiseamans.com
I hereby certifY that on this day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mail as foilows: Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

### _A,_tterrti0n:

**He~:ir:g D0ck~t**  

### Clerk, .l\._GC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000

Date: 

### APR 1

### L 2016
li'--1111'-- M. Facey Paralegal Specialist Federal AviationAdministration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

TULTEX CORPORATION, ET AL. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2734-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON 

 JULY 2, 1996 

JIM HENRY STANLEY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Martha White Medley (Daniel, Vaughan, Medley 

& Smitherman, on brief), for appellants. 

 Robert A. Williams (Williams, Luck and 

Williams, on brief), for appellee. 

 Tultex Corporation, the employer, appeals from an award of 

benefits to Jim Henry Stanley for an injury by accident he 

sustained during his employment. We find that credible evidence 

supports the findings of the commission and affirm the 

commission. 

 The parties are fully conversant with the record to this 

case, and a recitation of the facts is unnecessary to this 

memorandum opinion. 

 Guided by well established principles, we construe the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing 

below. Crisp v. Brown's Tysons Corner Dodge, Inc., 1 Va. App. 

503, 504, 339 S.E.2d 916, 916 (1986). "If there is evidence, or 

reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence, to support 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the Commission's findings, they will not be disturbed on review, 

even though there is evidence in the record to support a contrary 

finding." Morris v. Badger Powhatan/Figgie Int'l, Inc., 3 Va. 

App. 276, 279, 348 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1986); see Code § 65.2-706. 

"In determining whether credible evidence exists," this Court 

will not "retry the facts, reweigh the preponderance of the 

evidence, or make its own determination of the credibility of the 

witnesses." Wagner Enters., Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 

894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991) (citation omitted). "[A] 

determination of causation is a factual finding." Ingersoll-Rand 

Co. v. Musick, 7 Va. App. 684, 688, 376 S.E.2d 814, 817 (1989). 

 From the medical evidence and testimony presented, the 

commission found that Stanley experienced a separate compensable 

accident. Having found in the record credible evidence to 

support this conclusion, we affirm the award of the commission. 

 Affirmed.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2159 

AN ACT 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs located at 400 College 

Drive, Middleburg, Florida, as the ‘‘Andrew K. Baker 

Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’, 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, 
2 

†S 2159 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ANDREW K. BAKER DEPART2 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient 

4 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 

5 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, shall after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs 

8 Clinic’’ or the ‘‘A.K. Baker VA Clinic’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred 

12 to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference 

13 to the Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs 

14 Clinic. 

Passed the Senate February 3, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2159 

AN ACT 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic 

fairs Clinic’’, and for other purposes. ‘‘Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Af400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, as the of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at