alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 15, 1998



Board of Directors
America Online, Inc.

Note 4 of  Notes to  Condensed  Consolidated  Financial  Statements  of  America
Online,  Inc.,  included in its Form 10-Q for the three  months  ended March 31,
1998,  describes a change in the method of accounting for income taxes. Prior to
the third quarter of fiscal 1998, the Company followed the practice of computing
its tax provision on the  assumption  that current year stock option  deductions
were used first to offset its financial  statement income before utilizing NOLs.
Accordingly,  because stock option  deductions were not recognized as an expense
for financial  reporting  purposes,  deferred tax expense was recognized and the
resulting tax benefit was credited to additional  paid-in-capital  in accordance
with APB Opinion  No. 25,  Accounting  for Stock  Issued to  Employee,  and FASB
Statement No. 109,  Accounting  for Income Taxes.  For the first two quarters of
fiscal 1998, the Company continued this policy  notwithstanding the existence of
significant net operating loss carryforwards. During the third quarter of fiscal
year 1998, the Company  changed its accounting for income taxes to recognize the
tax benefits from current and  unrealized  prior years' stock option  deductions
after recognition of net operating loss carryforwards  (i.e.,  determined before
stock option  deductions).  You have advised us that you believe that the change
is to a  preferable  method  in your  circumstances  because  this  method  more
accurately  reflects  the  incremental  effect  of the  Company's  stock  option
deductions in the appropriate accounting period.

There is no specific  authoritative criteria for determining a preferable method
of  sequencing  the  utilization  of  net  operating  losses  and  stock  option
deductions;  however, based on the particular circumstance, we conclude that the
change  in the  method  of  accounting  for  income  taxes  is to an  acceptable
alternative  method which,  based on your business  judgment to make this change
for the reason cited above,  is  preferable in your  circumstances.  We have not
conducted an audit in accordance with generally  accepted auditing  standards of
any  financial  statements  of the  Company  as of any  date or for  any  period
subsequent to June 30, 1997 and, therefore, we do not express any opinion on any
financial statements of America Online, Inc. subsequent to that date.

                                Very truly yours,

                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
OLD CUTLER GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant(s)/petitioner(s), v. MICHAEL WEINER, M.D., P.A. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, et al., Appellee(s)/respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 30, 2017

ORDERED that appellee's motion to dismiss appeal is granted, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed for failure to file an initial brief.

Appellant's motion to consolidate cases, dispense with record on appeal from second case, and to modify briefing schedule is hereby denied as moot.

Appellee's motion for attorney's fees is conditionally granted subject to it prevailing in Third District Court of Appeal case number 3D17-2088.

LOGUE, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald HINSHAW, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10080 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 18, 2017

Leigha Amy Simonton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ronald Hinshaw pleaded guilty to theft of Government funds. The presentence report (PSR) calculated his guidelines range to be 30-37 months in prison. Hinshaw was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment. The district court stated that Hinshaw’s criminal history category substantially underrepresented the likelihood that he would commit other crimes. The district court also found that the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warranted an upward variance to deter future crimes and to protect the public. Hinshaw argues that his sentence is unreasonable either as an upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 or as a variance from the sentencing guidelines.

The district court relied on appropriate § 3553(a) factors in determining that an upward variance was warranted based on the need to provide adequate deterrence to further recidivism and the need to protect the public from further crimes. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Gerezano-Rosales,*692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Cir. 2012). Hinshaw’s argument that his criminal his*325tory was not sufficient to justify a variance is no more than a disagreement with the district court’s decision. *See Gall, 552*U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Because Hinshaw’s sentence may be affirmed as a variance from the guidelines range, we need not address Hinshaw’s procedural arguments regarding the application of § 4A1.3. *See United States v. Mejia-Huerta,*480 F.3d 713, 723 (5th Cir. 2007).

Finally, Hinshaw argues that the district court erred under *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013), by increasing his sentence beyond the recommended guidelines range. As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Tuma,*738 F.3d 681, 693 (5th Cir. 2013).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1181 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States against 

unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Mr. TAKANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure due process protections of individuals in the 

United States against unlawful detention based solely 

on a protected characteristic. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Korematsu-Takai Civil 

5 Liberties Protection Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DETENTION. 

7 Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub10 section (c); and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1181 IH

1 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(b) PROHIBITION ON DETENTION BASED ON PRO4 TECTED CHARACTERISTICS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No individual may be im6 prisoned or otherwise detained based solely on an ac7 tual or perceived protected characteristic of the indi8 vidual. 

9 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term 

10 ‘protected characteristic’ includes each of the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(A) Race. 

13 ‘‘(B) Ethnicity. 

14 ‘‘(C) National origin. 

15 ‘‘(D) Religion. 

16 ‘‘(E) Sex. 

17 ‘‘(F) Gender identity. 

18 ‘‘(G) Sexual orientation. 

19 ‘‘(H) Disability. 

20 ‘‘(I) Any additional characteristic that the 

21 Attorney General determines to be a protected 

22 characteristic. 

23 ‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in 

24 this subsection shall be construed to allow the Attor25 ney General to remove a characteristic described in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1181 IH

1 subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (2) 

2 from the definition of the term ‘protected char3 acteristic’ under this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 604 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available video 

conferencing for applicants for NEXUS. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. HIGGINS of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to make 

available video conferencing for applicants for NEXUS. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Make NEXUS Work 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VIDEO CONFERENCING FOR NEXUS APPLICANTS. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Homeland Security shall, not later than 45 days 

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, make available 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 604 IH

1 video conferencing for applicants for NEXUS enrollments 

2 and renewals. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 146 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to direct the United States Postal 

Service to establish rates of postage for packages shipped by priority 

mail from the United States to a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post 

Office, or Diplomatic Post Office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. NORCROSS (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to direct the United 

States Postal Service to establish rates of postage for 

packages shipped by priority mail from the United States 

to a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or 

Diplomatic Post Office, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Care Packages for Our 

5 Heroes Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 146 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES OF POSTAGE FOR 

2 PACKAGES SHIPPED BY PRIORITY MAIL 

3 FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN 

4 ARMY POST OFFICE, FLEET POST OFFICE, OR 

5 DIPLOMATIC POST OFFICE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3632 of title 39, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(d) EXEMPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), 

10 not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 

11 of this subsection, the Postal Service shall establish rates 

12 of postage for packages shipped by priority mail from the 

13 United States to a foreign Army Post Office, Fleet Post 

14 Office, or Diplomatic Post Office address whereby such 

15 packages may not be charged a zoned rate greater than 

16 the zone 2 rate (as that term is defined in section 608.9 

17 of the Domestic Mail Manual, or any successor manual).’’. 

18 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

19 2401 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by add20 ing at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(h) As reimbursement to the Postal Service for the 

22 costs of carrying out subsection (d) of section 3632, there 

23 are authorized to be appropriated to the Postal Service 

24 for any fiscal year an amount equal to the revenue dif25 ference between the estimated revenue the Postal Service 

26 would have received during such fiscal year if such subVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:21 Jan 28, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H146.IH H146

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 146 IH

1 section had not been enacted and the estimated revenue 

2 the Postal Service would receive during such fiscal year 

3 as a result of carrying out such subsection.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
owl-ex1016_169.htm



Exhibit 10.16

 

Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 

February 27, 2019

 

Craig W. Packer

Owl Rock Capital Corporation 

399 Park Avenue, 38th Floor

New York, NY 10022

 


			
	
 
	
Re:
	
Partial Waiver of Advisory Fee 




 

Dear Mr. Packer,

 

Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”), dated March 1, 2016, by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation (the “Company”) and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Investment Advisory Agreement.

 

We hereby agree, at all times prior to the fifteen-month anniversary of an Exchange Listing, to waive (i) any portion of the Management Fee that is in excess of 0.75% of the Company’s gross assets, excluding cash and cash-equivalents but including assets purchased with borrowed amounts at the end of the two most recently completed calendar quarters, calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement, and (ii) the Incentive Fee (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Capital Gains Incentive Fee).

 

Any portion of the Management Fee or the Incentive Fee (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Capital Gains Incentive Fee) waived shall not be subject to recoupment.  

 For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of the waivers described herein is to reduce aggregate fees payable to the Adviser by the Company, for the fifteen-month period following an Exchange Listing. 


			
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Sincerely yours,

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
          

	
 
	
 
	
Name: Alan Kirshenbaum

	
 
	
 
	
Title: Chief Operating Officer




 

1
#### CHICO’S FAS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Andrea CLAIR, Anastasios Koskinas, 1654754 Ontario, Inc., DBA Wink Intimates, Defendants-Appellants

2016-1579

2016-1581

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 9, 2017

Brian R. Gilchrist, Esq., Ava K. Doppelt, Ryan Santurri, Attorney, Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant

Shyam Dixit, Attorney, Dixit Law Firm, Tampa, FL, for Defendants-Appellants

Before Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Dyk, Circuit Judge.

It Is Ordered That:

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“district court”) is affirmed on the ground that the district court properly granted summary judgment that Beverly Johnson is an inventor of the design patent, U.S. Patent No. D622,478, and the *1007utility patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,506,347 (“’347 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,182,-310 (“’310 patent”), that Anastasios Koski-nas is not an inventor of these patents, and that the district court properly found that Johnson did not abandon her ownership rights in the aforementioned patents and that Chico’s had acquired these rights. We remand to the district court to correct inventorship as appropriate pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256.

We dismiss as moot the appeal from the district court’s order determining that the ’347 patent and claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 of the ’310 patent are invalid as anticipated by the Natori Peony Contour prior art.

In light of this disposition, as Chico’s cross appeal is conditional, we do not reach the issue of whether Clair engaged in inequitable conduct.

No costs.
Exhibit



	
		
	
	Exhibit 10.21















Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation
As of January 1, 2019


The following compensation will be provided to non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Compass Minerals International, Inc. (the “Company”) pursuant to the Company’s Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy.


		
	A.
	Cash Compensation




		
	1.
	Annual Retainer.  Each non-employee director will receive a $75,000 annual cash retainer for service on the Board.




		
	2.
	Committee Service Fee.  In addition, each non-employee director serving as a chair or member of any of the following Board committees will receive an annual cash fee for committee service, as follows:




	
			
	Committee
	Chair
	Members

	Audit Committee
	$22,500
	$10,000

	Compensation Committee
	$15,000
	$7,500

	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee
	$12,500
	$5,000

	Environmental, Health & Safety Committee
	$12,500
	$5,000






		
	3.
	Most Tenured Independent Director.  In addition, the Most Tenured Independent Director will receive an annual cash fee of $25,000 for service as Most Tenured Independent Director until the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board assumes this role.




4.    Non-Executive Chairman of the Board. In addition, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board will receive an annual cash fee of $65,000 for service as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
		
	B.
	Equity Compensation.  




		
	1.
	Annual Equity Award.  Each non-employee director will receive an equity award with an annual equity award value of $105,000 for service on the Board.




		
	2.
	Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.  In addition, the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board will receive an equity award with an annual equity award value of $55,000 for service as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board.
Demetrius CALHOUN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

Demetrius Calhoun, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Rashan WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0303

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

*559Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
EX PARTE Anthony Ryan BOWEN

CR-16-0767

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Habeas corpus pet. granted.
EX PARTE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.

1150839

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 20, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
2

Table 1. Summary of Reviewed Environmental Fate Data for Chlorpyrifos 

Data 

Requirement 

Guideline 

Number MRID Study Classification1 Remarks

Field Volatility 835.8100 48998801 Supplemental 

This study is an open literature study conducted on 

potatoes in the Netherlands. The study is classified 

supplemental since the raw data for this study could 

not be obtained by EPA. The flux rates could not be 

independently verified and, thus, evaluation of 

experimental details and associated data quality for 

this study are not are as rigorous as normally 

completed by EFED. This study should only be used 

for characterization purposes in risk assessment. 

Air photolysis 835.2370 48789701 Supplemental 

This study was submitted by Dow AgroSciences; 

however, the results have not been verified by EPA 

as the raw data submitted to the EPA could not be 

interpreted. EFED requests that the registrant submit 

the raw data in a format that can be used to verify the 

study results. Nevertheless, the results obtained for 

indirect photolysis are consistent with the Estimation 

Program Interface (EPI) Suite estimations. EPI Suite 

is commonly used by EPA to estimate physicalchemical parameters when data are unavailable. This 

study confirms the formation of chlorpyrifos-oxon 

via photolysis. 1

OPPIN Classifications: Acceptable/Guideline; Acceptable/Non-Guideline; Cited; Confirmatory; Decision Deferred; 

Extraneous submission; In Review; No Decision; Partially Acceptable; Supplemental: Unacceptable/Guideline; 

Unacceptable/Non-Guideline; Upgradeable.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 09761

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

09761\09761_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 09761\09761_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09761\09761_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09761\09761_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09761\09761_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09761\09761_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 09761\09761_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

09761\Certification Statement_09761.pdf Plant certification statement

09761\Supporting Documentation\09761_MAP-1 9761 Maalaea.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09761\Supporting Documentation\09761_MAP-2 9761 Maalaea.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09761\Supporting Documentation\09761_WB1 9761 Maalaea.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09761\Supporting Documentation\09761_WB2 9761 Maalaea.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 09761\09761_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09761\09761_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.