alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 
 Description of Vantiv, Inc. Director Compensation
for Paul L. Reynolds and Greg D. Carmichael 
 On March 21, 2012, in connection with the initial public offering of Vantiv, Inc.
(“Vantiv”), indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Fifth Third Bancorp (“Fifth Third”) received Class B Common Stock of Vantiv entitling them to elect two directors to the board of directors of Vantiv (the “Class B
Directors”), and on that date, Greg D. Carmichael, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Fifth Third, and Paul L. Reynolds, Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Fifth Third, were elected to the board of directors
of Vantiv as the Class B Directors. 
 Messrs. Carmichael and Reynolds will receive compensation from Vantiv for their service as directors,
which will consist of the following: 
  

	 	•	 	 an annual cash retainer of $80,000; and 


  

	 	•	 	 an annual equity grant of $120,000 of value-denominated, full-value restricted stock units, which will vest on the earlier of one year from the date of
the grant or the next annual stockholder meeting and will be settled in shares of stock following the termination of the director’s service. 


 In addition, on March 21, 2012, Messrs. Carmichael and Reynolds were awarded 7,058 restricted stock units, which will vest on the earlier of one year from the date of the grant or the next annual
stockholder meeting and will be settled in shares of Class A common stock following the termination of the director’s service. 
 None
of the aforementioned compensation has been or will be paid by Fifth Third. The terms of the compensation paid to Messrs. Carmichael and Reynolds by Vantiv are the same as the terms of the compensation paid to all other directors of Vantiv, other
than its chairman and its chief executive officer.
#### Sundari K. PRASAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monica K. VICK, Drug Addict; Hamilton L. Hendrix; Gloria Dale Lewis-Sorrell; Sharon Lewis-Pauls, Retired; Jonathan D. Headlee, HRRJ; David Carpenter; Ocean Clark; Chocolate Factory; Omid Amiri; Jane Massey; Carolyn D. Nelson; Gail Nelson; Pouncee Nelson, and the Nelson Family; Jim Sorrell; Pauley Pauls, The Estate of June Lewis; Vivienne B. Cheek; Ashton Hendrix; Tracy Bosley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7725

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge’s order to further particularize Prasad’s complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Prasad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* .We deny Prasad’s motion to seal confidential documents, as no such documents have been filed in this court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 'contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to amend her complaint. *Cf. Goode,*807 F.3d at 629-30.
United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 WestBuilding Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Exemption 10366, DocketFAA-2011-0987 To Whom It MayConcern, September 10,2013

North American Airlines (NOCA172S) hereby requests an extension ofthe reliefprovided by Exemption 10366 to the requirements of 14 CFR 121.689(a)(6), which states (in part) a requirement to specify Minimum Required Fuel Supply in pounds or gallons. The aircraft Fuel Quantity Indicating Systems (FQIS), flight planning systems, and weight and balance program used by the carrier all utilize kilograms as a unit ofmeasure. Continuing to provide the Minimum Required Fuel Supply (MFR) in kilograms on the flight release will ensure that all data related to the flight will be in a common unit of measure, thereby eliminating the possibility ofan unintentionally incorrect fuel load, and will permit the carrierto maintain a continuouspolicyregardingthis issue. North American Airlines has operated successfully under the original grant of Exemption 10366 for nearly two years, and respectfully requests an extension to the latitude providedby this Exemption. Please contact me ifyou should have any questions and thankyou for your assistance with our request. Sincerely, 

# iLJ?d.
CaptainDavidP. Currier Vice President

- Operations NorthAmerican Airlines 101 World Drive Peachtree City, GA 30269 (770) 268-7985 dcurrier@flynaa.com C: Insp. S.E. Pengelly (ATL CM065); C. Hewitt; T. Godbold; D. McDannell; R. Calascibetta
101 World Drive Peachtree City, GA 30269
#### Robert PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John B. MANN, Defendant-Appellee, and Martha Mann, Martha Mann, co-account holder, Claimant-Appellee, and Martha Mann, Defendant.

No. 16-2382

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Robert Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Joseph Burke, TYLER, BARTL, RAMSDELL & COUNTS, PLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Patterson appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting in part John B. and Martha Mann’s Exemp*232tion Claims for Garnished Funds, We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Patterson v. Mann,*No. 1:13-cv-01338-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 12, 2017

a0906 

# Order

Clerk September 12, 2017

154363

THE DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154363

COA: 326793

Wayne CC: 13

- 015970

- NF

MICHIGAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY

GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration in light of Covena nt Medical

Center, Inc v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co , 500 Mich ___ (Docket No. 152758,

decided May 25, 2017).

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 12087 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:20

- cv - 80665

- RAR

FRANKIE RAINES, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus

OKEECHOBEE CI WARDEN, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( February 3, 2021 ) USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 1 of 32 Before LAGOA , BRASHER, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Frankie Raines, a state prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as impermissibly successive. We review whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was successive de

novo . Patterson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr ., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017). Although a certificate of appealability is generally required to appeal a final order in a proceeding under § 2254, we have held that the dismissal of a successive habeas petition for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction does not constitute a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding” for purposes of § 2253(c). Hubbard v. Campbell , 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Instead, we review that dismissal as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See i d. Although we liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, issues that a
pro se litigant has not clearly raised on appeal are deemed abandoned and will not be addressed. Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2254 petition. Bowles v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr ., 935 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2019) , cert. denied sub nom , Bowles v. Inch , 140 S. Ct. 26 (2019). When an initial habeas petition is adjudicated on the merits, a subsequent petition is successive. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 485

- 86, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000).

USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 2 of 33 Because Raines did not argue, nor even mention, the issue of whether the petition was improperly dismissed as successive in his brief , he has abandoned the issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 3 of 3
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 22, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 4 3 8 1 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 5

- 0 0 1 8 0

- C R

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s
J A V I E R M A R T I N E Z ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( J a n u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e B L A C K , B A R K E T T a n d M A R C U S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

D o n n a L e e E l m , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r J a v i e r M a r t i n e z i n t h i s a p p e a l o f t h ed i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f M a r t i n e z ’ s s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

.

§ 3 5 8 2 , h a s m o v e d t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d f i l e d a b r i e f

p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d c o n f i r m s t h a t t h e r e a r e n o
i s s u e s o f a r g u a b l e m e r i t o n a p p e a l

. T h e r e f o r e , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d t h e d e n i a l o f M a r t i n e z ’ s 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n i s
A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Terry SHERO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11583 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 27, 2017

*281James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Terry Shero, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Terry Shero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Shero 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 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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.

*

 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.
#### Jessica Yesenia VILLALOBOS-DIAZ; Yesenia Sarai Portillo-Villalobos, Petitioners v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60321 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 5, 2017

Jesus A, Macias, Houston, TX, for Petitioners

Leslie McKay, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Sara Bayram, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice,- Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Jessica Yesenia Villalobos-Diaz and her minor daughter, both citizens and natives of El Salvador, petition this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. *Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder,*772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014).

The petitioners contend that the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying their motion because they demonstrated that their original counsel was ineffective in failing to submit documents which would have corroborated their request for asylum. By their argument, the petitioners simply complain that the BIA should have addressed their ineffective assistance claim on the merits. However, they fail to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s dis-positive determinations that they failed to comply with the procedural requirements for bringing an ineffective assistance claim and that the new evidence submitted did not demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for any of the requested relief. By failing to challenge the reasons for the BIA’s decision, the petitioners have abandoned the sole issue for review.1*See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.

1

. Inasmuch as the petitioners now also contend that the BIA violated their due process rights, we lack jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted arguments. *See Omari v. Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9074-9075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which

[[Page 9075]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of MOSAIC Institutionally-
Focused Research Education Award (UE5) Applications.
    Date: March 31, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Natcher 
Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lisa A. Dunbar, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2849, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8899828e8d9e80ac818d8580c2828584c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2440514a464556486449454d480a4a4d4c0a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03454 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Richard Salvador, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AngioGenex, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 31a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the small business issuer and we have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: April 10, 2009



/s/ Richard Salvador



Richard Salvador

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Sarbelio de Jesus SAGASTUME-HUESO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60264 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 5, 2017

Ronald Darwin Richey, Esq., Law Offices of Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, MD, for Petitioner

Elizabeth Karen Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before DAVIS, PRADO, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sarbelio de Jesus Sagastume-Hueso, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Sagastume-Hueso contends that, in light of the IJ’s initial finding that he was eligible for CAT relief, the later entry of a contrary finding violated the “law of the case” doctrine. However, the BIA had not “decided” any issues regarding CAT relief but rather returned the record for a more complete decision because the IJ’s insufficient findings precluded meaningful review. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).

The finding that Sagastume-Hueso did not suffer harm rising to the level of torture is supported by substantial evidence. *See Zhang v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), Though Sagastume-Hueso argues that the IJ failed to consider testimony that he was threatened and kicked, there is no evidence that this caused him “severe pain or suffering,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). He fails to show that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed. *See Sharma v. Holder,*729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013).

The petition for review is DENIED

*

 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.