alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RAYTEL
MEDICAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,650
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,059<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,715
<PP&E>                                          46,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,964
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,885
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (109)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                       575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       900
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<FN>
<F1>Represents net receivables.
<F2>Included in TOTAL-COSTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Hon. Brian J. Curley

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

New Orleans, Louisiana

Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard

Judge Brian J. Curley was appointed a United States 

Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security in 2018. Judge 

Curley hears and decides merchant mariner 

credential suspension and revocation (S&R) cases, 

as well as other cases initiated by the Department of 

Homeland Security and other agencies as assigned 

by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Assigned to the 8th Coast Guard District in New 

Orleans, LA, Judge Curley’s jurisdiction spans 26 

states, including the Gulf of Mexico coastline from 

Florida to Mexico, the adjacent offshore waters, and 

the inland waterways of the Mississippi, Ohio, 

Missouri, Illinois, and Tennessee River Systems. 

In 2013, Judge Curley was appointed as an Administrative Law Judge for the Social 

Security Administration in Paducah KY, primarily hearing and deciding cases for 

individuals seeking disability benefits. In 2014, he transferred to Lawrence, MA 

where he remained until his current appointment. 

He was in private practice specializing in litigation from 2000 to 2004 and 

transitioned to government law in 2004 practicing as a general attorney and senior 

attorney advisor for the Social Security Administration. Prior to his legal career, 

Judge Curley served in the United States Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987 followed 

by a 15-year career with Delta Airlines.

Judge Curley is a graduate of Southern New England School of Law and is admitted 

to the Massachusetts Bar, First Circuit, and First Circuit Court of Appeals. He earned 

an AAS with high honors from Wentworth Institute of Technology and graduated 

magna cum laude with a BSBA from Eastern Nazarene College. 

Professional affiliations include being a life member of the Disabled American 

Veterans, American Legion, and the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference. 

Judge Curley also holds a FAA Part 65 airman certificate.
Notice of Violation (NOV)

Written By Unknown Author.

Occasionally the Coast Guard will issue a "Notice of Violation" (NOV). The 

proposed penalty amounts associated with the NOV are pre-determined in 

the Notice of Violation User's Guide, COMDTINST M5582.1A. The charged 

party may choose to pay the proposed penalty, or decline the penalty. The 

back of the NOV document explains that choosing to decline the NOV "...will 

result in the case file being sent to a Coast Guard Hearing Officer for a 

determination. After the Hearing Officer makes a preliminary determination, 

you will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations or request a 

hearing." It is important to note that the Hearing Officer is not bound by the 

NOV or COMDTINST M5582.1A. Once the case file is forwarded to the Coast 

Guard Hearing Office for adjudication, the Hearing Officer gives precedence 

to the evidence and circumstances of the case, more so than to the proposed 

penalty amount derived from COMDTINST M5582.1A. The Hearing Officer's 

preliminary assessed penalty amount, therefore, may be greater than, less 

than, or equal to the NOV proposed penalty amount.
opbk-ex101_6.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Addendum to Employment Agreement (the "Addendum") is made this 24th day of June 2021, between OP BANCORP, a California bank holding company (the "Company”), OPEN BANK, a California banking corporation (the “Bank”), and Min J. Kim, (the "Executive").

 

WHEREAS: The Company and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated November 1, 2017 (the “Employment Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS: The Company wishes to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

 


	
1.
	
Paragraph 2. TERM. The Company hereby agrees to continue to employ Executive as an at-will employee and Executive hereby accepts continued employment with the Company for the period commencing with the Effective Date and terminating on December 31, 2024, unless either party gives the other written notice not less than forty-five (45) days before the termination date; subject, however, to prior termination of this Agreement and Executive’s employment as hereinafter provided.




 


	
2.
	
Paragraph 3.3 EQUITY AWARDS.  The Executive shall be entitled to equity awards as determined by the Board and in accordance with the Company’s 2021 Equity Incentive Plan.  With the term extension, she will be entitled to receive a grant of restricted stock units of the Company’s common stock equaling 125% of the Executive’s base salary as of the date of the addendum, vesting equally over 3 years. 




 


	
3.
	
Paragraph 3.4 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE.  The Executive’s automobile allowance was rolled into her base salary as of April 1, 2019 and therefore no additional automobile allowance will be paid as of the roll-in date and throughout the extended contract term.  




 

The remainder of the Employment Agreement remains unchanged and is in effect in full.

 

WHEREAS: The Company wishes to memorialize the amendment to the Employment Agreement.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Employment Agreement has been executed and delivered by a duly authorized officer of the Company and by the Executive on the date of signature.

 


	
June 24, 2021
	
 
	
/s/ BRIAN CHOI
	
 

	
Date
	
 
	
OP Bancorp/Open Bank 
Chairman of the Board
Brian Choi
	
 




 

 



 

 

 


	
June 24, 2021
	
 
	
/s/ MIN J. KIM
	
 

	
Date
	
 
	
OP Bancorp/Open Bank

President & CEO 

Min J. Kim
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1869** 

CHRISTOPHER MADDOX MOSSBURG , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 01633

- RWT )

Submitted : January 4, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Maddox Mossburg, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorney s General , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Maddox Mo ssburg appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reason s stated by the district
court. Mossburg v. Maryland , No. 8:15

- cv - 01633

- RWT (D. Md.
June 29, 2016) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 10.19
 Summary of Compensation for  Non-Employee Directors and Named Executive Officers
 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
 Annual Retainer
 Board and Committee Meeting Fees
 Annual Equity Award
 Named Executive Officer Compensation Summary
  Name
    
    Title
    
    SalaryStephen J. Harrison
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    500,000Thomas M. Harrison, Jr.
    
    Executive Vice President and Secretary
    
    $
    300,000William R. Pentecost
    
    Chief Information Officer
    
    $
    191,650Randy L. Reed
    
    Senior Vice President  Sales and Marketing
    
    $
    175,000Michael J. Bodayle
    
    Chief Financial Officer - Insurance
Company Operations
    
    $
    164,300




---



##### 



Additional Information
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDRIC ENGH and MICHAELE ENGH
, Appellant s ,

v.

PALM BEACH REAL ESTATE OFFICE, LLC d/b/a

KELLER WILLIAMS PREFER R ED PARTNERS and / or KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY PREFER R ED PARTNERS and / or THE TRICO L I TEAM
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2567

[ June 14, 2023]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T.

Case No. 502022CA002003XXXMB

.

Nic h ole J. Segal of Burli ngton & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach

, and David P. Vitale

, Jr.

, of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Ari C. Shapiro

, Daniel A

. Garcia , and Christopher T. Beck of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

, Miami , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Dodge of Winter Park, Inc. v. Morley , 756 So. 2d 1085

, 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“ [W]hen a group of simultaneously executed documents are signed in conjunction with a non

- signed document, all the

documents should be construed as a whole since documents executed as part of a single transaction and concerning the same subject matter must be viewed together. ”).

W ARNER
, G ERBER and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2505 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2505

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the annual 
      reporting of data on enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

 Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Kind) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the annual 
      reporting of data on enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans.

    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 ``Medicare Advantage Coverage 
Transparency Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR ENROLLMENT DATA REPORTING FOR MEDICARE 
              ADVANTAGE.

    Section 1859 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h) Requirement for Enrollment Data Reporting.--
            ``(1) In general.--Not later than May 1 of each year 
        (beginning with 2016), the Secretary shall submit to the 
        Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the 
        Senate a report on enrollment data of the plan year ending 
        before January 1 of such year. Such enrollment data shall be 
        presented--
                    ``(A) by zip code, congressional district, and 
                State; and
                    ``(B) in a manner that provides for such data for 
                each MA-PD plan and for each MA plan that is not an MA-
                PD plan.
            ``(2) Delay of deadline.--If the Secretary is unable to 
        submit a report under paragraph (1) by May 1 of year for data 
        of the plan year ending before January 1 of such year, the 
        Secretary shall, not later than April 30 of such year notify 
        the committees described in such paragraph of--
                    ``(A) such inability, including an explanation for 
                such inability; and
                    ``(B) the date by which the Secretary will provide 
                such report, which shall be not later than June 1 of 
                such year.''.
                                 <all>
```
(Thousands of dollars, budget year dollars) FY 2016 Request FY2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total Acquisiti

Cost 

Vessels $533,900 $666,000 $944,000 $847,000 $871,000Survey and Design - Vessel and Boats $9,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Not ApplicablIn-Service Vessel Sustainment $68,000 $94,000 $73,000 $46,000 $50,000 Not ApplicablNational Security Cutter (NSC) $91,400 $132,000 $95,000 $30,000 $15,000 $5,559,000 Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) $18,500 $100,000 $530,000 $430,000 $430,000 $10,523,000 Fast Response Cutter (FRC) $340,000 $325,000 $240,000 $240,000 $325,000 $3,764,000 Cutter Boats $3,000 $4,000 $3,000 $0 $0 Not ApplicablPolar Icebreaker $4,000 $10,000 $2,000 $100,000 $50,000 TBD Aircraft $200,000 $206,600 $112,000 $120,000 $122,000HC-144A Conversion/Sustainment $3,000 $25,500 $0 $0 $0 TBD HC-27J Conversion/Sustainment $102,000 $130,000 $80,000 $80,000 $90,000 Not ApplicablHH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $30,000 $22,000 $909,200 HC-130J Acquistion/Conversion/Sustainment $55,000 $9,800 $0 $0 $0 TBD Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) $0 $6,300 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 TBD Other $65,100 $51,300 $49,300 $45,800 $27,300Program Oversight and Management $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Not ApplicablC4ISR $36,600 $24,300 $24,300 $22,300 $7,300 $1,410,600 CG-LIMS $8,500 $7,000 $5,000 $3,500 $0 Not ApplicablShore and ATON $101,400 $83,800 $35,000 $75,000 $160,000Major Shore, ATON and S&D $41,900 $55,000 $10,000 $25,000 $90,000 Not ApplicablMilitary Housing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Not ApplicablMajor Acquisition Systems Infrastructure $54,500 $23,800 $20,000 $45,000 $65,000 Not ApplicablMinor Shore $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Not ApplicablPersonnel and Management $116,657 $117,631 $115,407 $113,161 $114,293Direct Personnel Costs $116,657 $117,631 $115,407 $113,161 $114,293 Not Applicabl

TOTAL $1,017,057 $1,125,331 $1,255,707 $1,200,961 $1,294,593

FY 2016-2020 Five Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP)

Acquisition, Construction & Improvements
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Lorain
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

|Date: February 23, 2015                     
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|By: /s/ Si Chen                             
|Name: Si Chen                               
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)               

---
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of RMH Teleservices, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Fellows, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




January 21, 2003





Signed:

/s/    John A. FellowsName:

John A. FellowsTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
#### Sandra Billings, Appellant, v Berkshire Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mercure, J.), entered May 20, 1986 in Schenectady County, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew or reargue a previous order dismissing the complaint against defendant Berkshire Mutual Insurance Company.

In 1981 plaintiff commenced an action to recover upon a fire loss sustained in 1980. On June 20, 1985, pursuant to CPLR 3216, defendant Berkshire Mutual Insurance Company served a written demand upon plaintiff to file a note of issue. More than 90 days had elapsed and the demand had not been complied with when, on September 23, 1985, Berkshire moved to dismiss the complaint against it. That motion, made on notice to plaintiffs attorney-of-record and also her present attorney, was granted by Supreme Court, which found neither an excuse for the filing delay nor a showing of a meritorious cause of action. An order dismissing the suit against Berkshire was duly entered and then served on both of plaintiffs counsel on January 17, 1986. Approximately three months later, plaintiff moved to renew or reargue. The individual assignment system now being in place, plaintiff, with the filing of her request for judicial intervention and motion papers with the Schenectady County Clerk’s office, sought to have the matter permanently assigned to the Justice who had issued the order of dismissal. However, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.3 and 202.6, the action and plaintiffs motion were assigned, apparently randomly, to a different Justice, who declined to transfer the motion to the former Justice and denied the relief requested, quite rightly concluding that reargument was untimely and that, viewed as a motion to renew, the moving papers were patently insufficient.

At issue is whether the second Justice’s failure to transfer the motion, as CPLR 2221 seemingly mandates, was an improvident exercise of discretion. We think not. To the extent pertinent, CPLR 2221 (a) provides that "[a] motion for leave to renew or to reargue a prior motion * * * shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, *unless he is for any reason unable to hear*it” (emphasis supplied). Here, the motion was before the second Justice because of the implementation of the individual assignment system which contemplates that all motions are to be made returnable before the Justice *920charged with overseeing the case *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.8 [a]). That carrying out the purpose of the individual assignment system satisfies the underscored excepting clause has been confirmed by an amendment to the rule (CPLR 2221 [b], as amended by L 1986, ch 355, § 5, eff July 17, 1986; 22 NYCRR 202.8 [a]; *see, Ministry of Christ Church v Mallia,*129 AD2d 922).

Order affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.