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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5614 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5614

   To amend title 14, United States Code, to vest in the Coast Guard 
primary responsibility in the Federal Government for the naval defense 
 of nuclear power facilities located on navigable waters of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2006

  Mrs. Kelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 14, United States Code, to vest in the Coast Guard 
primary responsibility in the Federal Government for the naval defense 
 of nuclear power facilities located on navigable waters of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITIES FOR NAVAL DEFENSE OF NUCLEAR 
              POWER FACILITIES LOCATED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.

    (a) Responsibility.--Section 2 of title 14, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting before ``and shall maintain a state of readiness'' 
the following: ``shall have primary responsibility in the Federal 
Government for the naval defense of nuclear power facilities located on 
navigable waters of the United States, including for providing vessels 
capable of intercepting and destroying water-borne threats to such 
facilities;''.
    (b) Authorities.--
            (1) In general.--Chapter 5 of title 14, United States Code, 
        is amended by inserting after section 86 the following:
``Sec. 87. Naval defense of nuclear power facilities located on 
              navigable waters
    ``To carry out the responsibility of the Coast Guard for the naval 
defense of nuclear power facilities located on navigable waters of the 
United States, the Commandant of the Coast Guard--
            ``(1) may enter into agreements with the Secretary of 
        Energy for the exchange of information regarding the defense of 
        such facilities;
            ``(2) may assign Coast Guard officers to the Department of 
        Energy for liaison purposes; and
            ``(3) may accept equipment and support from the Department 
        of Energy.''.
            (2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
        such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
        section 86 the following:

``87. Naval defense of nuclear power facilities located on navigable 
                            waters.''.
                                 <all>
```
Brianna JONES, Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and Minor Children, Appellees

No. CV-18-539

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered: January 16, 2019

Montgomery & Burke, by: Wm. Blake Montgomery and Jim A. Burke, Hope, for appellant.

Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor children.

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Appellant Brianna Jones seeks to appeal an order by the Hempstead County Circuit Court terminating her parental *472rights to her daughters, S.B. and K.J. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jones filed her notice of appeal on April 13, 2018. It was signed by her lawyer, Steve Harrelson. On July 19, 2018, William Blake Montgomery entered an appearance on behalf of Jones and filed a motion for belated appeal on July 25, 2018. Our supreme court granted that motion and a motion to stay briefing on September 6, 2018. The appeal was transferred to our court, and briefing commenced.

The requirements of a notice of appeal in dependency-neglect proceedings differ from normal procedure in that Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B) requires that the notice of appeal and designation of record be signed not only by Jones's counsel, but also by the appellant herself if, as here, she is an adult.1 A notice of appeal in such cases that lacks the signature of the appellant is deficient. *See**McPherson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.* , 2013 Ark. App. 238, 2013 WL 1682633. While not every defect in a notice of appeal will deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction, the Arkansas Supreme Court has required strict compliance with the appellant-signature requirements of Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B). *Id.*

Our supreme court granted Jones's motion for belated appeal, but there has been no cure to the violation of the rule requiring her signature on the notice of appeal. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed.

Glover and Brown, JJ., agree.

1

Jones's date of birth is August 6, 1992.
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TierOne Corporation (Company), hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
               March 31, 2008 (Report) fully complies with the requirements
of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a)                or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  May 12, 2008 | By:/s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom          
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the
|                    | Board and Chief Executive Officer
SERVED: N4ARCH 28, 2012 

•y-pARTMEMT OF 

iVAMSPORWlON 

•r.iy.(n OPERATIONS. 

1 - "^"1 

m ^UR20 P 2: 3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ED STAUB & SONS PETROLEUM, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. ITO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penally Action) 

DMS No. FAA-20M-0067 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On March 9, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. On February 23, 2011, Ed Staub & Sons Petroleum, Inc. ("Respondent") had 

filed a Request for Hearing. On March 15, 2012, Respondent withdrew its Request for 

Hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "Al any lime before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings.under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

I. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Aliachmeni - Service List 
FDMSNo. FAA-2011-0067 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Rusty Rinchart, Respondent's Counsel 

Rinehart Law Offices 

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 

2105 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 340 

Campbell, CA 95008 

TEL: 408-871-2696 

FAX: 408-871-2757 

Patrick K. Tillman, Esq. 

Law Office of Patrick K.. Tillman 

2021 Tlie Alameda. Suite 160 

San Jose, CA 95126 

Kyle Lomazow, Complalnani 's Counsel 

Attorney. Office of the Regional Counsel 

Nortliwest Mountain Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue. SW 

Renton, WA 98055 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Adminisirative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Ad visor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assisant/Paralegal 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For ser\'ice in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Fedcnil Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wriglit BuildingSuite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591. Atiention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 23

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
CNB Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-83303 and No. 333-49762) of CNB Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries, of our report dated February 9, 2001, relating to the
consolidated statements of condition of CNB Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the
December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CNB Bancorp, Inc.

March 26, 2001
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7639
RONALD ANTHONY MANNO, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv00526-AMD) Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Anthony Manno, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald Anthony Manno seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Manno has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, and deny Manno’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment of his appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EX-4.1











Exhibit 4.1




REDGATE MEDIA GROUP




	 	 	 	 	 
	 
SHAREHOLDER	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS	PAR VALUE PER SHARE
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FROM	TO	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	US$0.0025
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DATE OF ISSUE	NO. OF SHARES	CLASS	CONSIDERATIION PAID
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
 COMMON
 	 
	 	 	 	 	 





SHARE CERTIFICATE




OF




REDGATE MEDIA GROUP




INCORPORATED IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS




Authorised Capital:



THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF THE SHARES SPECIFIED
HEREUNDER SUBJECT TO THE RULES AND LAWS GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPANY




(PLEASE REFER TO THE BACK OF THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE FOR THE LEGENDS.)




	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
SHAREHOLDER	CERTIFICATE NUMBER	NO. OF SHARES	CLASS	PAR VALUE PER SHARE
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	COMMON	US$0.0025
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DATE OF ISSUE	DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FROM	TO
	 	 	 
 	 
 
	 	 	 	 






GIVEN UNDER THE COMMON SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE STATED ABOVE AND IN THE PRESENCE OF




	 	 	 
	 
 
 
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	DIRECTOR
	 	DIRECTOR/SECRETARY







 









 









NO TRANSFER OF ANY OF THE ABOVE SHARES CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS CERTIFICATE



THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS
AMENDED, AND THE RULES AND THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, AS IN EFFECT FROM TIME TO TIME
(THE “SECURITIES ACT”) OR ANY SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. THEY MAY NOT BE
OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED, HYPOTHECATED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OR UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT.
Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.12 
 Summary of Compensation Payable to Named Executive Officers 
 Base Salary. The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo”) has approved the 2010 base salaries of Yahoo’s principal executive officer, principal
financial officer, and the other executive officers who were named in the Summary Compensation Table of the Company’s Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2009 and who are currently employed by the
Company (together, the “Named Executive Officers”). The following table shows for each of the Named Executive Officers the annual base salary for 2010, which will become effective on April 1, 2010 (with the exception of the base
salaries for Ms. Bartz and Mr. Yang, which are unchanged from 2009): 
  

			
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Annual
Base
Salary ($)
	 Carol Bartz
 Chief Executive Officer
	  	1,000,000
	 Jerry Yang
 Chief Yahoo
	  	1
	 Timothy R. Morse
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	525,000
	 Aristotle Balogh
 Executive Vice President, Products and Chief Technology Officer
	  	575,000
	 Michael J. Callahan
 Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	475,000

 Bonus. In addition to
receiving a base salary, Yahoo’s Named Executive Officers are also generally eligible to receive an annual bonus. 
 Yahoo’s Named
Executive Officer bonuses for 2010 will be determined under Yahoo’s Executive Incentive Plan. The Named Executive Officers’ respective target bonus opportunities (expressed as a percentage of annual base salary) under the Executive
Incentive Plan for 2010 are as follows: Ms. Bartz - 200%, Mr. Morse - 100%, Mr. Balogh - 100% and Mr. Callahan - 75%. Mr. Yang will not participate in the Executive Incentive Plan. The Committee also has the ability to award
discretionary bonuses from time to time in circumstances the Committee determines to be appropriate. 
 Long-Term Incentives. The
Named Executive Officers are also eligible to receive equity-based incentives and other awards from time to time at the discretion of the Committee. Equity-based incentives granted by Yahoo to the Named Executive Officers are reported on Form 4
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Subcommittee for Planning the Annual Strategic Plan Updating Process of 
the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), March 17, 2009, 
12 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time at the National Institutes of Health, 31 
Center Drive, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 10, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on March 
9, 2009, 74 FR 10059.
    The meeting location has been changed. The meeting will be held in 
the Neuroscience Building, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference Room A, 
Rockville, MD 20852. The time remains the same. The meeting will be 
open to the public with attendance limited to space available. The 
meeting will also be open to the public through a conference call phone 
number (Dial: 888-455-2920 and Access code: 3857872).

    Dated: March 11, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-5970 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2834

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

George Piper, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: July 17, 2000

 Filed: July 21, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Piper challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a) and 846. His counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although we granted Piper permission to

file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.
-2-

As part of his plea agreement, Piper waived his right to appeal his sentence

unless the district court departed upward from the Guidelines range. We conclude that

this waiver was knowing and voluntary. Among other things, Piper was assisted by

counsel at the change-of-plea and sentencing hearings; the court questioned him about

the appeal waiver at the change-of-plea hearing, verifying that he understood he was

waiving his right to appeal as part of the plea bargain, and then reminded him of the

appeal waiver at sentencing; and the plea agreement and the presentence report advised

him of the mandatory minimum penalty. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867,

871 (8th Cir.) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and

voluntary decision), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 942 (1998); United States v. Greger, 98

F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict with

negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal from

sentence will be enforced; waiver was knowing and intelligent where it was included

in plea agreement, it was discussed at change-of-plea hearing, and court reviewed

waiver of right to appeal at sentencing).

Accordingly, because Piper’s sentence was not an upward departure from the

Guidelines range, we now specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing

his appeal. See United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam). We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ex10_17.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.17

     

    Compensation
of Non-Employee Directors

     

    Fees
for Non-Employee Directors:

     

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Lead
      independent director annual retainer -
$60,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Non-employee
      director annual retainer - $35,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Audit
      Committee chairman - $20,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Audit
      Committee membership - $10,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Compensation
      Committee chairman - $15,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Compensation
      Committee membership - $7,500

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Nominating
      and Corporate Governance Committee chairman -
  $15,000

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Nominating
      and Corporate Governance Committee membership -
  $7,500

            


    

    
      	
              §  

            	
              Strategic
      Planning Committee chairman -
$15,000

            


    

     

    
      	
              Directors
      may, at their option, receive equity grants in lieu of the cash
      compensation above.  All directors are reimbursed for reasonable
      out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings
      and director education programs.

            


    

     

    Equity
Awards:

     

    Non-employee
Directors are annually granted either stock options with an exercise price equal
to 100% of the fair market value of the common stock at the date of grant or
shares of restricted stock based on a fair market value on the date of grant of
$120,000.  Except under certain limited circumstances, the options and
restricted stock vest no earlier than one year after the date of grant. Each
option granted is exercisable for up to ten years after the grant
date.