alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.20**
Compensation Of Directors
     Only non-employee directors are compensated for serving as members of the Board. Prior toJuly 2003, no directors were eligible to receive cash compensation for the services they provide asdirectors, although all directors are reimbursed for certain expenses in connection with attendanceat Board and committee meetings.
     At the 2003 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, shareholders approved a cash compensationpackage for non-employee directors. The approved plan for cash compensation will only be effectiveupon the appointment of a new non-employee Class I director. Accordingly, no payments were due tonon-employee directors during 2003. Under the approved compensation policy, upon the appointmentof a new Class I director approved by shareholders, as is contemplated at this Annual GeneralMeeting, non-employee directors will receive cash remuneration consisting of $1,000 per fiscalquarter, plus $1,000 for each Board meeting attended and $1,000 for each Committee meetingattended. In addition, the Chair of the Audit Committee will receive an additional $500 per AuditCommittee meeting.
     In addition, under the policy approved by the shareholders, non-employee directors areeligible for non-discretionary grants of stock options under the Company’s option plans.Non-employee directors receive a non-discretionary option grant of 50,000 Ordinary Shares upontheir initial election or appointment to the Board and annual option grants of 15,000 OrdinaryShares at each Annual General Meeting of Shareholders thereafter during their term of service.Annual option grants are not made in cases where a director’s initial term is shorter than sixmonths at the time of the Annual General Meeting. The non-discretionary grants vest over a periodof four years, with one-quarter of the Ordinary Shares subject to the option becoming vested andexercisable after one year and monthly thereafter over the remaining period of thirty-six months,subject to continued service as a director of the Company. The grant date of the initial optiongrant is the date that the non-employee director is initially elected or appointed to the Board.The grant date of the annual option grant is the date of the Annual General Meeting. The exerciseprice for these non-discretionary grants is the closing sale price of the Company’s Ordinary Shareson The Nasdaq SmallCap Market the day before the grant date.
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 12, 2022

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

________________ No. 3D21

- 1068 Lower Tribunal No. 09

- 32975

________________


### Adrian Duncan , Appellant,

vs. 

### Mia Franklin , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo , Judge. Bickman Law PLLC, and Joshua Bickman , for appellant. Law Office of Pamela M. Gordon, P.A., and Pamela M. Gordon (Hollywood) , for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and LOBREE , JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 Appellant Adrian Maurice Duncan appeals an order denying his exceptions to the Ge neral Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations wherein the trial court ratified, approved , and adopted the Report and Recommendation of the General Magistrate dated November 17, 2020, awarding retroactive child support.
“The standard of review for a child support award is abuse of
discretion.” McKenna v. McKenna , 31 So. 3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
A trial court ’ s determination of a party’s income for purposes of establishing support obligations must be supported by competent, substantial eviden ce.
See Sallaberry v. Sallaberry , 27 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 20 1 0). The

t rial court’s decision to impute income is reviewed for abuse of discretion

. See Cura v. Cura , 299 So. 3d 1127 , 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). “ Awards of retroactive child support a re reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ” Williams
v. Gonzalez , 294 So. 3d 941, 94 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Henry v. Henry , 191 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) )

. Finding there is competent , substantial evidence to support the Magistrate’s findings, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Affirmed.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, et al., petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, et al.

No. 18-205.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
```

```

----

Updated December 5, 2012
On appeal Schulz raises over twenty issues; however, we 

choose to discuss only three: (1) whether Schulz owns the beach area that 

abuts his property on Lake Tahoe; (2) whether the assessment of Schulz's 

property is just and equitable; and (3) whether NRS 321.595 is 

unconstitutional and whether its application amounts to a taking of 

Schulz's property interest without just compensation. 

"In reviewing orders resolving petitions for judicial review 

that challenge State Board decisions," this court presumes that the State 

Board's determinations are valid. State Bd. of Equalization v. Bakst, 122 

Nev. 1403, 1408, 148 P.3d 717, 721 (2006). The taxpayer can overcome 

this presumption only by presenting clear and satisfactory evidence that 

the State Board's valuation was based on a fundamentally wrong 

principle, the Board refused to exercise its best judgment, or that the 

assessment was so excessive it implies fraud and bad faith. Id. at 1409, 

148 P.3d at 721. 

After full consideration, we determine that all of Schulz's 

arguments lack merit. In Schulz v. Zephyr Cove Property Owners 

Association, Inc., Docket No. 18344, we determined that Schulz's did not 

own the beach area abutting his property; see also Schulz Partners, LLC v. 

Zephyr Cove Property Owners Association Inc. Docket No. 55006 

consolidated with Docket No. 55557 (Order of Affirmance, July 5, 2011), 

therefore, issue preclusion bars Schulz from re-litigating the matter. See 

Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 

(2008). Douglas County's and the Douglas County Assessor's assessment 

of Schulz's property was just and equitable because the assessor used an 

appropriate method under NRS 361.227 to determine the property's value. 

NRS 321.595 is constitutional under the public trust doctrine. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e, 2 
See Lawrence v. Clark Cnty., 127 Nev. „ 254 P.3d 606, 612 (2011). 

Lastly, Schulz could not have suffered a taking because it did not have a 

property interest in the land it claims that the state took. See McCarran 

Int'l Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 658, 137 P.3d 1110, 1119 (2006). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, 

Hardesty 

>LAI Inca 

Douglas 

CIAPA1 ) 

1,/ 

Cherry 

, J. 

J. 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Harry W. Swainston 

Douglas County District Attorney/Minden 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

PI 1947A cep
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/27/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       49,856
COMMITMENTS
   3,148    2,282        0   41,874   45,743   45,022   48,025    4,834    1,831

CHANGES FROM 03/20/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        596)
   1,467    1,521        0     -982     -683      485      838      111     -242

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     6.3      4.6      0.0     84.0     91.8     90.3     96.3      9.7      3.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       59)
       6        3        0       29       32       35       35
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 03/27/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       84,292
COMMITMENTS
  14,829   10,181      223   54,333   69,116   69,385   79,520   14,907    4,772

CHANGES FROM 03/20/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,757)
    -868   -7,690        0     -822    8,881   -1,690    1,191    4,447    1,566

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    17.6     12.1      0.3     64.5     82.0     82.3     94.3     17.7      5.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       90)
      21        8        1       41       34       62       43
```

----

Updated March 30, 2012
AMERICULTURE, INC., et al., petitioners, v. LOS LOBOS RENEWABLE POWER, LLC, et al.

No. 18-89.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Justin SHULTZ, et al., petitioners, v. Jason COLE.

No. 18-1326.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WALTER CORSE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1752 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed July 11, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Thomas P. Barber, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Lisa Lott, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Walter Corse, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. CRENSHAW, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements for American Tax-Exempt Bond Trust and is qualified in
     its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000916824
<NAME>                        American Tax Exempt Bond Trust
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          1,081,939
<SECURITIES>                                   24,674,787
<RECEIVABLES>                                     200,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,160,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             469,347
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,691,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,160,922
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,911,461
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  224,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,687,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,687,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>
Elmar K. SCOTT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8536.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Darnell WILKINS, petitioner, v. Jay LANE, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 18-5926.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES DAVID THORNBRUGH, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-5082 

(D.C. Nos. 4:17-CV-00462-CVE-FHM & 

4:89-CR-00067-CVE-1) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

James David Thornbrugh, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, has filed a notice of 

appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or 

Correct a Sentence Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Second-In-Time by a Person in 

Federal Custody and/or Federal Civil Rule 60(b) (5) & (6),” as an unauthorized second or 

successive § 2255 petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the 

appeal. 

Thornbrugh filed a timely notice of appeal from the above-mentioned district court 

order, which is Appeal No. 18-5082. At the same time, Thornbrugh filed a notice of 

 

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 13, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

appeal from the district court order that authorized the government to withdraw payments 

from his prison trust account, which is Appeal No. 18-5083. This order concerns only 

Appeal No. 18-5082. 

On October 9, 2018, Thornbrugh filed a combined opening brief in both appeals. 

The brief, however, never mentions the district court’s order that denied his motion as 

second or successive; instead, the brief is confined exclusively to the court’s order 

regarding the withdrawal of payments from his prison trust account. 

“Although we liberally construe pro se filings, we do not assume the role of 

advocate.” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Indeed, a pro se litigant must “comply with the fundamental 

requirements of the Federal Rules of . . . Appellate Procedure.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). One of those fundamental requirements is that a party actually make an 

argument in his opening brief. See, e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Therefore, where a 

party fails to make “any argument on the merits of the claims involved, we deem them 

waived under the general rule that even issues designated for review are lost if they are 

not actually argued in the party’s brief.” Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949, 954 (10th 

Cir. 1992). Thornbrugh’s brief makes no contentions regarding the district court’s 

jurisdictional dismissal of his unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. 

The appeal is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
Trey BEAM, petitioner, v. Robert F. ABERCROMBIE, Jr.

No. 18-218.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Courven Terrel 

ThomasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00756-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

Courven Terrel THOMAS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-14-0533

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellee’s brief is due July 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314

                    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical                           ( print page 27664)                        information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF website:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​events/​.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8687.                

Dated: May 4, 2022.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-09892 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1379

AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emernational narcotics control assistance. make a technical correction relating to inter- gency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, to
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1379

AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a technical

correction relating to international narcotics control assistance.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1379 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Western Hemisphere

3 Drug Elimination Technical Corrections Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS RELATING

5 TO RESOURCES FOR ILLICIT NARCOTICS IN

6 CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Subtitle

8 B of title VIII of division C of the Omnibus Consolidated

9 and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999

10 (Public Law 105–277), is amended by adding at the end

11 the following:

12 ‘‘SEC. 826. FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL RE13 SOURCES.

14 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be ap15 propriated for the Department of State for fiscal year

16 1999 such sums as may be necessary to carry out section

17 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.

18 2291).

19 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Amounts appro20 priated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in

21 subsection (a) are in addition to amounts made available

22 to carry out section 481 of such Act under any other provi23 sion of law.’’.

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Title VIII of divi25 sion C of such Act (Public Law 105–277) is amended in
3

•HR 1379 EH

1 the table of contents in section 801(b) by adding at the

2 end of the item relating to subtitle B the following:

‘‘Sec. 826. Further miscellaneous additional resources.’’.

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall take effect as if included in subtitle B

5 of title VIII of division C of such Act (Public Law 105–

6 277).

Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 21


FIRST LOOK MEDIA, INC. SUBSIDIARIES


Alien Towers, Inc., a California corporation

Code 99 Productions, Inc., a California corporation

Intrastate Film Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation

First Look Music, Inc. (f/k/a Jacaranda Music, Inc.), a Delaware corporation

Map Productions, Inc., a California corporation

Overseas Filmgroup (UK) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom

Walrus Pictures, Inc., a California corporation

MAP PRODUCTIONS, INC. SUBSIDIARY

Map Movies Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada

OVERSEAS FILMGROUP (UK) LIMITED SUBSIDIARIES

Elphich Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom

OFG Films Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the Island of
Jersey