alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-6.htm


EXHIBIT 10.6







Compensation Arrangements with Remer Y. Brinson, III







Neither Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. (“Company”), nor First Bank of Georgia (“Bank”), has a written employment agreement with Remer Y. Brinson, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. and First Bank of Georgia.  Mr. Brinson’s current (2012) salary is $295,000 and Mr. Brinson is eligible for an annual incentive award under the Bank’s Annual Incentive Plan, pursuant to which he received $59,149 for his performance in 2011.  See Exhibit 10.8 for a description of Mr. Brinson’s Annual Incentive Plan.  Mr. Brinson is eligible for stock option grants under the Company’s option plans as determined from time to time by the Board of Directors of the Company.  In addition, Mr. Brinson participates in the Bank’s medical, dental, life and disability insurance plans and he may participate in the Company’s 401(k) plan.  Mr. Brinson also receives the following perquisites: payment of private and civic club membership dues, provision of an automobile and an automobile allowance.  The aggregate value of these perquisites in 2010 was less than $10,000.







Mr. Brinson entered into a Severance Protection Agreement with the Bank, which entitles him to certain payments following a change in control of the Company.  The Severance Protection Agreement was filed with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as Exhibit 10.6.
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Kansas Natural Gas Interstate Receipts  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Kansas Natural Gas Interstate Receipts  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 1,136,401
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,036,161 | 906,394   | 1,047,474 | 974,939   | 1,127,799 | 1,140,230 | 1,219,027 | 1,201,629 | 1,070,930 | 1,062,570
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,130,728 | 1,064,073 | 1,105,922 | 1,280,296 | 1,330,792 | 1,549,310 | 1,435,214 | 1,537,472 | 1,526,680 | 1,647,027
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,910,362 | 1,994,084 | 1,920,308 | 1,859,350 | 1,863,437 | 1,659,754 | 1,621,072 | 1,743,533 | 2,092,110 | 1,882,236
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,469,046 | 1,079,500 | 1,356,253 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
NRG West violations - please help us protect the city of Carlsbad .

Kathy Combs 

t

o

:

Shaheerah Kelly 05/26/2009 01:29 PM

From: Kathy Combs <combs.kathy@gmail.com>

To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been replied to.

Dear Ms Kelly, 

NRG West has submitted an application to the California Energy Commission (Docket Number: 

07-AFC-06) to build a 558 megawatt power plant in coastal Carlsbad, California named the 

Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) and has requested authorization to emit up to 72.8 tons 

of NOx per year (though NRG West admits that the new units have the potential to emit 75.6 

tons of NOx per year). NRG "voluntarily" agreed to limit NOx emissions from the 75.6 tons/yr 

to the 72.8 tons/year, probably in order to avoid the 40 ton/year EPA trigger. This new power 

plant will be located on the same property as the existing 55 year-old 963 megawatt Encina 

Power Station that runs approximately 7% per year. 

As I understand the rules-Section 52.21(b)(48) - concerning a new stationary source of air 

pollution, limits are placed on new applicants for permission to emit air pollution. At its 

soonest, the CECP will not begin construction until 2010 which means the previous 5 years of 

look-back (2005-2009) push the new application over the limit of 40 tons of emissions of NOx 

per year. Based on the 2005-2009 years, the new CECP would emit 25% more than the 

threshold allows. This would require NRG to submit to the EPA for a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) of air quality. Please require them to do so. 

As the protector of environmental quality, the residents of Carlsbad rely on the EPA to enforce 

Federal air quality rules. It is imperative that NRG West be forced to comply with rules in place 

to protect the public. Other electrical generating assets are coming on-line in San Diego County 

that will provide for demand. There is every reason to make sure that all rules are being 

followed by the addition of CECP to the City of Carlsbad and the region. 

Thank you, I look forward to hearing from you and can provide additional information if needed.

Sincerely, Kathleen S Combs

Cc: Senator Barbara Boxer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GINNIE H. WOOTEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE &

No. 96-1480

TELEGRAPH COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

a/k/a Bell South

Telecommunications, Incorporated,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.

(CA-95-349-5-BO)

Submitted: October 3, 1996

Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN,* LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randy Meares, BYRD & MEARES, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Paul T. Stagliano, BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICA-

_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin did not participate in consideration of this case. The

opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
TIONS, INC., Atlanta, Georgia; Robert E. Thomas, Jr., BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ginnie H. Wooten appeals from the district court's order granting

summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing her employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e (West 1994). Wooten

alleged discrimination on the basis of her race (black).

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses

that this appeal is without merit. Wooten failed to establish a prima

facie case of employment discrimination. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___ U.S. #6D 6D6D#, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S.

Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees, 928

F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). Moreover, she failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason Defendant proffered to support its

transfer of Wooten. See Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933

F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs

v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 256 (1981).

Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of nondiscrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer,

470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). We therefore affirm the district court's

order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
**Exhibit 99.3****Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance**The Board of DirectorsPrincipal Financial Group, Inc.Principal Life Insurance CompanyWe have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report ofManagement on Compliance*, that Principal Financial Group, Inc. and Principal Life Insurance Company(collectively, the “Company”) complied with the specified standards identified in Exhibit A to the*Report of Management on Compliance*(the “specified standards”) with respect to the secured notesissued by Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 16 during the year ended December 31, 2005.Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those specified standards. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliancebased on our examination.Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, ona test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the specified standards and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the specified standards.In our opinion, management’s assertion that Principal Financial Group, Inc. and Principal LifeInsurance Company complied with the aforementioned specified standards during the year endedDecember 31, 2005, is fairly stated, in all material respects.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP                                                            
Des Moines, IowaMarch 13, 2006

 
**Report of Management on Compliance**I, as a member of management of Principal Financial Group, Inc. and Principal Life InsuranceCompany (collectively, the “Company”), am responsible for complying with the standards identifiedin the attached Exhibit A (the “specified standards”) with respect to the secured notes issued byPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 16. I am also responsible for establishing and maintainingeffective internal control over compliance with these specified standards. I have performed anevaluation of the Company’s compliance with the specified standards as of December 31, 2005 and forthe year then ended. Based on this evaluation, I assert that during the year ended December 31,2005, the Company complied, in all material respects, with the specified standards./s/ Ellen Z. Lamale
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11999]



[[Page 25014]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Recovery and Implantation of Archival Tags.
    Agency Form Number: N/A.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0338.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 14 hours.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 1.5 hours for implantation of tags and 30 
minutes for report on recovery of a tag.
    Number of Respondents: 18.
    Needs and Uses: To investigate the migratory patterns of Atlantic 
bluefin tuna, a program has been undertaken to implant archival tags in 
selected tuna. Under a scientific research exemption, any person may 
catch, possess, retain, and land any regulated species in which an 
archival tag has been affixed or implanted, provided that the person 
immediately reports the landing of such fish. In addition, any person 
affixing or implanting an archival tag into a regulated species is 
required to provide written notification to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service in advance of commencing the activity, and upon 
completion of the activity, must provide a written report.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
organizations, and not-for-profit institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

    Dated: April 30, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-11999 Filed 5-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 121 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance 

at the end of a fiscal year to be deposited in the Treasury and used 

for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BASS of New Hampshire, Mr. 

GOWDY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. STIVERS, and 

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

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be 

deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction 

or to reduce the Federal debt. 

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 ‘‘Congressional Budget 

5 Accountability Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 121 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS’ 

2 REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO BE 

3 USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO RE4 DUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, any amounts appropriated for Members’ Rep7 resentational Allowances for the House of Representatives 

8 for a fiscal year which remain after all payments are made 

9 under such Allowances for the year shall be deposited in 

10 the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that 

11 in the case of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal 

12 budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to reduce the 

13 Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of the 

14 Treasury considers appropriate). 

15 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Committee on House Ad16 ministration shall promulgate such regulations as may be 

17 necessary to carry out this section. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

19 respect to fiscal year 2011 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT

CLARK WOOD II, 

Defendants-Appellants,

 and

FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendant.

Nos. 17-16840

18-15136

D.C. No. 

2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF

MEMORANDUM*

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT

CLARK WOOD II, 

Defendants,

Nos. 17-16842

18-15214

D.C. No. 

2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF

FILED

JUL 2 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
 and

FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 10, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Access Medical, LLC, Robert Wood, and Flournoy Management, LLC,

1

appeal the district court’s two orders denying appellants’ two requests that the

district court issue an order indicating to this Court that the district court would

grant or entertain a motion for relief, brought under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

favor of Nautilus Insurance Company. We dismiss these consolidated appeals.

The district court lacked adjudicatory authority to rule on the merits of

appellants’ Rule 60 motions for relief from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment while that order was pending on appeal before this court,

1

 We reject Nautilus’s argument that Flournoy lacks standing to bring this

appeal. As an insured under the policy, Flournoy was adversely affected by the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nautilus.

2
absent a limited remand allowing it to do so. See Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d

661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007). We therefore decline to exercise appellate jurisdiction

over the district court’s orders denying appellants’ requests for indicative rulings. 

See Defs. of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2000).2

DISMISSED.

2

 Nautilus’s motions for judicial notice (17-16840 Dkt. No. 30; 17-16842

Dkt. No. 29) are DENIED. Access and Wood’s motions for judicial notice (17-

16840 Dkt. Nos. 38, 64; 17-16842 Dkt. Nos. 37, 63; 18-15136 Dkt. Nos. 10, 32;

18-15214 Dkt. No. 29) are DENIED.

3
Owen Cooper, University of Colorado-Boulder/NOAA

February 25, 2016

Quantifying background ozone

(2 pages)
TH

RY

PS

SN

Only once have high frequency ozone profiles been

measured along the US west coast at multiple sites to

quantify background ozone.May –June 2010: a total of 130 profiles from 4 sites

Funded by NOAA, NASA, EPA and the US Navy

These data directlysupport the researchefforts of the Task Force

on HemisphericTransport of Air Pollution,

led by Terry Keating at US

EPA.

Obs.model
Model success rate:

The frequency that

a model is within

a certain percentage of co‐sampled

observations.Calculated for

6 global‐scale models

and

4 regional scale‐models

A commentary inScience, June 5, 2015.

Describes the role of

enhanced observations

for accurately

quantifying backgroundozone.
#### COM. v. HIGGS, A.

1097 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/25/2017

CP-02-CR-0012087-2015

(Allegheny)

Affirmed
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Oregon Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Oregon Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 676    | 1,034  | 738   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 699    | 787    | 740    | 696    | 765    | 791    | 799    | 704    | 695    | 718   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 717    | 821    | 842    | 926    | 907    | 1,118  | 1,060  | 1,136  | 1,075  | 1,051 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,053  | 1,066  | 1,076  | 1,085  | 1,099  | 1,117  | 1,193  | 1,202  | 1,214  | 1,205 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,196  | 1,197  | 1,189  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024