alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS’ COMPENSATION 
 Effective
April 7, 2014, compensation paid to non-employee directors of A. O. Smith Corporation is as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	An annual cash retainer of $47,500, payable quarterly in advance, and $110,000 paid in A. O. Smith Corporation Common Stock. 

  

	 	•	 	A fee of $2,500 for each board, committee and annual shareholder meeting attended. 

  

	 	•	 	A fee of $1,000 for each telephonic board and committee meeting. 

  

	 	•	 	A new director orientation meeting fee of $2,500. 

  

	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $5,000 for Audit Committee members and $3,000 for the members of the Investment Policy Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and Personnel and Compensation Committee. 


 

	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $15,000 for the chairperson of the Audit Committee and $10,000 for the chairpersons of each of the Investment Policy Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and Personnel and Compensation
Committee. 

  

	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $20,000 for the presiding director. 

 The foregoing reflects the following change to
previously disclosed compensation for non-employee directors effective April 7, 2014: A. O. Smith Corporation’s Board of Directors, upon recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, increased the stock retainer from $94,000
to $110,000.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BOYD TYRONE RUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3127 

______________________ 

Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No. 

131203-51687-3 by Marvin J. Feldman.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Boyd Tyrone Rucker moves to withdraw his petition

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b).* 

Upon consideration thereof, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The petition is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 13-3127 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2014
2 RUCKER v. NAVY

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s21 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 5, 2014

* Although Mr. Rucker requests that his petition be 

dismissed with prejudice, the court does not usually 

designate voluntary dismissals as being with or without 

prejudice.

 

Case: 13-3127 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2014
#### In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robert L. Taylor, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Robert L. Taylor, Respondent.

Supreme Court

*No. 03-0587-D.*

*Decided May 5, 2003.*

2003 WI 35

(Also reported in 660 N.W.2d 665.)

*2The Court entered the following order on this date:

Attorney Robert L. Taylor has filed a petition for consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19(3). He was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1979 but his license was revoked in 1987 and has not been reinstated.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) is currently investigating Attorney Taylor in four matters, all involving his pre-1987 revocation conduct. One of the matters involves a 1990 federal criminal conviction of conspiracy to defraud by misapplying funds and embezzlement from a federal credit union. The other three matters involve Attorney Taylor's representation of three clients during a 1985 period during which his license had been suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. In addition, OLR is investigating Attorney Taylor in these three matters for allegations involving charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee, neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly pay or deliver to the client funds in the attorney's possession to which the client was entitled, and failure to return unearned fees. In his petition, Attorney Taylor acknowledges that he cannot successfully defend himself against these allegations.

OLR has responded and recommends that the petition be granted. Both OLR and Attorney Taylor request that the revocation be made retroactive to December 14, 1992, the date on which Attorney Taylor could have first sought reinstatement from the 1987 revocation. They submit that it would be unfair to prospectively revoke Attorney Taylor's license for conduct that occurred over 15 years ago and prior to the 1987 revocation.

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license revocation of Attorney Robert L. Taylor is *3granted. Retroactive revocations are not a typical sanction but it is appropriate under these unusual circumstances. The revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be effective December 14, 1992. To the extent he has not already done so, Attorney Taylor must comply with SCR 22.26 relating to activities following license revocation.
# C_2009019EN.01003604.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-367/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 19/71)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Enzo Taddei, certify that:

         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Maximum Awards, Inc.;

1. 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;

2. 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and 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
         registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
         quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                  (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 registrant'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
         registrant's internal control over financial reporting.




Date: May 17, 2007.




/s/ Enzo Taddei
---------------------------
Name: Enzo Taddei
Chief Financial Officer



                                     - 23 -
STATE v. Edward Charles GREEN

94P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Edward Charles Green, for Green, Edward Charles.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Maureen Krueger, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of March 2017 by Defendant for Voter Fraud Dismissal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
COLUMBUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES EX REL. Tiffanee A. MOORE v. Calvin T. NORTON

No. 249P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Calvin T. Norton, for Norton, Calvin T.

David S. Tedder, Assistant County Attorney, for Columbus County Dept. of Social Services (Ex. Rel.), et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of July 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
*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 Because Beale's case was pending before the Benefit

Review Board for over one year and did not receive formal review by

the Board by September 12, 1996, the decision of the Administrative

Law Judge was considered affirmed by the Board and the decision of

the ALJ became that of the Board. See Omnibus Consolidated

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60749

Summary Calendar

MILTON BEALE,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

HEMLERICH & PAYNE; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

 OF PITTSBURGH; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board

(95-0577)

September 15, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel for the Petitioner petitions this Court for review of

a decision of the Benefits Review Board1 affirming an order by the
Rescissions and Appropriations of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110

Stat. 1321.

2

administrative law judge consisting of a Decision and Order on

Reconsideration, all pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.

This Court's review is limited to determining whether the

Board's decision correctly concluded that the ALJ's order was

supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and is

in accordance with the law. Ingalls Shipbuilding v. Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 991 F.2d 163, 165 (5th

Cir. 1993). Substantial evidence is evidence that “ a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. The

substantial evidence standard is less demanding than that of a

preponderance of the evidence. Avondale Indust. v. Director,

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 977 F.2d 186, 189 (5th

Cir. 1992).

We have carefully reviewed the decision of the ALJ, the

parties briefs and the arguments of counsel, and the record before

us, and conclude that the decision of the Benefits Review Board is

supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that Beale’s

employer agreed to pay Beale’s medical costs prior to the hearing

and no controversy remained at the time of the hearing. Thus,

Petitioner’s counsel was not entitled to an award of attorneys’

fees. Flowers v. Marine Concrete Structures, Inc., 19 BRBS 162

(1986); Kleiner v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 16 BRBS 297 (1984).
3

Therefore, under the particular facts of this case, Beale's counsel

has failed to show that he is entitled to the attorneys' fees for

which he petitioned.

PETITION DENIED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 01 2 . SI DNEY LEONARD J OHNSON v . THE STATE.

On J u ne 2 1, 2 0 17

, S i d n ey Leo n ard J o h n s o n ’ s p ro bat i o n was rev ok ed b as ed

u p o n th e co m

m i s s i o n o f a n ew fel on y o ffen s e. J o hn s o n m o v ed fo r ap po i n t m en t o f

co u ns el t o ch al l en g e t h e r e v o c at i o n

, wh ich t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed by o rd er en t ered

Oct o b er 1 6

, 20 1 7

. J o h n s o n co nt en ds h e n ev er r ecei v ed a co p y o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

Oct o b er 1 6 o rd er. He t h u s fi led a m o ti o n t o v acat e an d reen t er t h e o rd er. Jo h ns o n al s o

fi led a m o t i o n t o co rrect a v o id s en t en ce, arg u i n g t h at t h e t ri al c o u r t im p ro p erl y

rev o k ed 8 y ears o f h i s p ro b at i on

. In s ep arat e o rd ers en t ered o n M ay 3 1

, 2 0 1 8, t h e t ri al

co u rt d en i ed J o hn so n ’ s m ot i o n t o co rrect a v o i d s en t en ce an d vacat ed an d reen t ered

i t s Oct o b er 1 6 o rd er. J o h n s o n t h en fi led t h i s d i rect ap p eal fro m t h es e o rd ers

. 1 W e l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

T h e u n d erl y i n g s u b

j ect m at t er o f J o hn s o n ’ s ap p eal i s t h e rev o cat i o n o f hi s

p ro b at i o n

. I n o r d er t o o b t ai n ap p el l at e rev i ew, h e w as t hu s req u i red to fi l e an

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (5 ); Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 3 4 0

1 Th e tri al co urt en t ered a t h i rd o rd er o n M ay 3 1

, 2 0 1 8

, d i rect in g t h e cl erk to

fi le t h e d efen dan t ’ s m o t i o n t o v acat e an d reen t er th e o rd er, wh i ch ap p aren t l y h ad n ot

b een prev i o u s ly

fi l ed

. August 29, 2018Ga. Ap p

. 10 1, 1 02 (7 96 SE2 d 4 8 7 ) (2 0 1 7 ). Hi s fai lu re t o d o s o d ep ri v es u s o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h is ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/29/2018
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56877-56878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 601

[REG-133578-05]
RIN 1545-BE74


Dividends Paid Deduction for Stock Held in Employee Stock 
Ownership Plan; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a notice of public hearing on proposed 
regulations relating to employee stock ownership plans.

DATES: The public hearing is being held on January 18, 2006, at 10 a.m. 
The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the 
hearing by November 23, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being held at 10 a.m. in the IRS 
Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111

[[Page 56878]]

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Send submissions to: 
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-133578-05), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 
7604, Ben Franklin Station, and Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may 
be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-133578-05), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 
1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers 
may submit electronic outlines of oral comments directly to the IRS 
Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/regs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Concerning the regulations, John T. Ricotta 
(202) 622-6060; concerning submissions, Robin Jones (202) 622-7109 (not 
toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-133578-05) that was published in the 
Federal Register on August 25, 2005 (70 FR 49897).
    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing.
    Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that 
submitted written or electronic comments, must submit an outline of the 
topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each 
topic (signed original and eight (8) copies).
    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting 
oral comments.
    After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will 
prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the 
agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing.
    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors 
beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the 
hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the 
building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 05-19390 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1




             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF ABR INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.


 1.  ABR Properties, Inc. (a Florida Corporation)

 2.  ABR Benefits Services, Inc. (a Florida Corporation)

 3.  Charing Company, Inc. (a Wisconsin Corporation)

 4.  Matthews, Malone & Associates, Ltd. (an Arizona Corporation)

 5.  Business Computer Services, Inc. (dba PayAmerica) (a Virginia Corporation)

 6.  MidAtlantic 401(K) Services, Inc. (a Virginia Corporation)

 7.  Chowning, Ltd. (a Wisconsin Corporation)

 8.  The Barrington Group, Ltd. (a Wisconsin Corporation) (wholly owned by
     Chowning, Ltd.)

 9.  Western Pension Service Corporation (a California Corporation)

10.  BMC Consultants, Inc. (a Colorado Corporation)
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:                May 17, 2010



/s/ Curtis W. MewbourneCurtis W. MewbourneChief Executive OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Phillip Manderscheid v. LAZ Parking Texas LLC and Boot Man, Inc. 

d/b/a Premier Parking Enforcement

Appellate case number: 01-13-00362-CV

Trial court case number: 1019656

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

On September 9, 2013, the appellant filed a motion seeking corrections to the court 

reporter’s transcripts, or, alternatively, to abate the appeal and remand for hearings on purported 

inaccuracies. 

The Motion to Abate is GRANTED. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e)(3), the trial 

court is ORDERED to hold a hearing, in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e)(2) to settle the 

dispute after providing notice of same to all parties. The court coordinator of the trial court 

shall set a hearing date and notify the parties and the Clerk of this Court of such date.

The trial court shall have a court reporter, or court recorder, record the hearing and file 

the reporter’s record with the Court within 30 days of the date of this order. Additionally, the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations and any orders issued pursuant to this hearing shall 

be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed in this Court no later than 30 days from 

the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental 

clerk’s record and reporter’s record of the hearing are filed in this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 19, 2013
Exhibit 23.1






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-159075, 333-145764, 333-138461, 333-109709, 333-97521, 333-63798, 333-35114, 333-62619, and 333-14057) and on Form S-3 (333-125640) of BroadVision, Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule of BroadVision, Inc., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ ODENBERG, ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP






San Francisco, California


March 5, 2010
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Robert Schaffhauser            
|Robert Schaffhauser                
|Executive Vice President of Finance
|September 8, 2004