alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EPIGM ENIO RIOS-SIER R A , AKA Epim e nio Rios, AKA Antonio M artine s, AKA Se rgio R o s a le s , AKA Jua n Ga rc ia Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-72503 Age n c y No. A091-865-390
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Epigm e n io Rios-Sie rra , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for prote c tion 

# FIL ED JUN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by

8 U.S.C . § 1252. Alphonsus v. Holde r , 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th C ir. 2013). W e re vie wfor substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a n d re vie w de novo c la im s of due proc e ss viola

tions, Sime onov

v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of Rios-Sie rra ’ s C AT c la im be c a use R ios-Sie rra

did not e sta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not hewill betorture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the M e xic an gove rnm e nt. Se eZhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011). The re c ord doe s not support RiosSie rra ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a ge nc y ’ s a

na ly sis wa s de fic ie nt. W e re je c t R iosSie rra ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the IJ did not allow him to pre se nt his c la im and e xhibite d bia s . Se eLata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C i r. 2000) (re q uiring e rror to pre v a i l on a

due proc e ss c la im ). W e do not c onside r ne w e vide nc e R ios-Sie rra re fe re nc e s in his open ing brie f be c a use our re vie wis limite d to the a dm inistra tive re c ord unde rly i ng the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision. Se eFishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th C ir. 1996) (e n ba nc ).

1 4
- 7 2 5 0 3 2Fina lly , ba se d on re sponde nt’ s sta te m e nt tha

t R i os-Sie rra

ha s be e n re le a se d from de te ntion, R

i os-Sie rra ’ s re que st for a

bond he aring is m oot. Se e Pic rin-Pe ron
v . Rison , 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th C ir. 1991). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4
- 7 2 5 0 3 3
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00080- CR

John S . Young, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 119 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. B -17 -00 81- SB , H ONO RAB LE MARTI N “B ROCK ” JO NES, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

J ohn S. Young was char g ed with two counts of forg ery , one count of theft, and one count of money launder ing. See Tex. Penal Code §§ 31.03, 32.21, 34.02. During tri al , Young pleade d not g uilty to all four char g es. At the end of the trial, the jury found Young g uilty of all four char g es. Following his convictions, the district court issued a cer tif i ca t ion of Young ’s rig ht of appea l with ch ec k s an d other marks next to the box es cer tify ing the following : this case “is not a plea- barg ain ca se, and the defe ndant has the rig ht to appea l”; this c ase “is a plea- barg ain case , and the def endant ha s NO rig ht to appeal” ; and “the de fenda nt has waive d the rig ht of appe al.” Ba sed on the rec ord befor e this Court, it appea rs that the district court’s cer tification signe d May 9, 2018, may be incorre ct. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W .3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining that wh en deter mining whether appellant has rig ht to appea l, appellate courtsexamine trial court’s cer tification for defe ctiveness, define d as cer tification that is “cor

rec t in form but which, when compar ed to the rec ord befor e the court, proves to be inacc urate ”). There fore , we abate the appeal and rema nd the ca se to the district court to issue a ne w ce rtification. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1 (re quiring appellate court to notify parties if there appea rs to be defe ct in cer

tification); Dears , 154 S.W
. 3 d at 6 1 4 (st ating that appellate courts have authority under Rules of Appellate Procedur e “to obtain a

nother c ertifica

tion, wheneve r appr opriate” ). The district court cler

k is instruc ted to f

orwa rd to this Court a supplemental cler k’s
rec ord containing the new cer tification no later than April 2 9 , 2 0 1 9
. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c) (stating that if appellate court “order s the t rial court to prepa re . . . cer tification of t he def

endant’ s rig ht of appeal as require d by th ese rules, the t rial court cler k must prepa

re, certify , and file in the appellate court a

supplemental cle rk’s re cord” ). I t is ordere d on Marc h 29, 2019.

Be fore J ustices Goodwin, B aker , and Tria na Abated a nd Remanded Filed: Mar ch 29, 2019 Do Not Publish

2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:09CV317-RH/AK

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter has been reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge after an

Order of Recusal was entered by Chief Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill. (See Doc.

20). Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend his complaint on the same date as a Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal. (Docs. 17 and 18). The motion to amend is unaccompanied by a

proposed amended pleading, as required by Local Rule 15.1, and is therefore DENIED.

The Notice of Dismissal without prejudice will be GRANTED, and this cause

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2009.

s/ A Kornblum

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SCOTT CARSWELL, JULIE CARSWELL,

KENT McCOY, JANINE McCOY, and ROBERT

HOWARD, individually and as representatives of

similarly situated persons,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO.:4:10-cv-00486- SPM-WCS

vs.

LISA ECHEVERRI, as Executive Director of the

Florida Department of Revenue, acting in her

official capacity, and BP, plc; BP PRODUCTS

NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP AMERICA,

INC.; BP EXPLORATION AND

PRODUCTION, INC.; BP AMERICAN

PRODUCTION COMPANY; TRANSOCEAN,

LTD; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.;

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER,

INC.;TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, LLC;

TRITON ASSET LEASING GMBH;

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.;

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON

CORPORATION; ANDARKO PETROLEUM

CORPORATION; ANDARKO E&P

COMPANY, L.P.; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007,

LLC; M-I, LLC; DRIL-QUIP, INC.; MITSUI

OIL EXPLORATION; and HYUNDAI HEAVY

INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC.,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will appear as counsel for the Florida 

Department of Revenue, Defendant.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 2010.

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 25 Filed 11/30/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Bill McCollum

ATTORNEY GENERAL

s/ Jonathan A. Glogau

Jonathan A. Glogau

Chief, Complex Litigation

Fla. Bar No. 371823

PL-01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

850-414-3300, ext. 4817

850-414-9650 (fax)

jon.glogau@myfloridalegal.com

Counsel for Defendant Lisa Echeverri

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 30, 2010, the foregoing document was filed with the 

Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF system, causing it to be served on all counsel of record.

/s/ Jonathan A. Glogau

 Attorney

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 25 Filed 11/30/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2472 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2472

  To redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum Brook 
Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. 
                        Armstrong Test Facility.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2019

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To redesignate the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum Brook 
Station, Ohio, as the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at the Neil A. 
                        Armstrong Test Facility.

    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 ``Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds as follows:
            (1) Neil A. Armstrong, through his own definition, was 
        first and foremost as a test pilot.
            (2) A native of Wapakoneta, Ohio, Armstrong began his 
        inspiring career in space exploration in Cleveland, Ohio, at 
        what is now the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center.
            (3) Becoming the first human to land a spacecraft, and then 
        set foot upon, the moon, represents the greatest dream of any 
        test pilot.
            (4) Therefore, it is fitting that the premier aeronautics 
        and space test station in Ohio should be renamed in his honor.

SEC. 3. REDESIGNATION OF NASA JOHN H. GLENN RESEARCH CENTER AT PLUM 
              BROOK STATION, OHIO, AS NASA JOHN H. GLENN RESEARCH 
              CENTER AT THE NEIL A. ARMSTRONG TEST FACILITY.

    (a) Redesignation.--The NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Plum 
Brook Station, Ohio, is hereby redesignated as the NASA John H. Glenn 
Research Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the station referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``NASA John 
H. Glenn Center at the Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility''.
    (c) Savings.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter 
the relationship between the Plum Brook Station and the NASA John H. 
Glenn Research Center.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LAWRENCE TYLER DOWNING,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv200/WS/CJK

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 9, 2010, by filing a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc. 2). On October 1, 2010, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, and assessed plaintiff a $4.00 initial partial filing fee. (Doc. 7). 

Plaintiff paid the initial partial filing fee (doc. 8), but during the year that followed

made no further payment toward his outstanding fee balance of $346.00. 

Accordingly, on December 30, 2011, the Court issued an order reminding plaintiff of

his financial obligation and requiring plaintiff to submit to the Court a printout of his

inmate trust account statement(s) from each institution at which he was confined

during the period July 20, 2010 to December 30, 2011. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff was

provided thirty days in which to comply with the order and was warned that failure

to do so would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.).

Case 3:10-cv-00200-WS-CJK Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

A copy of the December 30, 2011 order was mailed to plaintiff at his address

of record, the Santa Rosa County Jail. It was returned on January 12, 2012 as

undeliverable, marked “Return to Sender – Attempted Not Known – Unable to

Forward.” (Doc. 14). To date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s December

30, 2011 order, or notified the Court of his current address. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff's

failure to comply with an order of the Court and failure to keep the Court informed

of his current address.

2. That the Clerk be directed to close the file. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 16th day of February, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object

may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636;

United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv200/WS/CJK

Case 3:10-cv-00200-WS-CJK Document 15 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 2
#### J. D. KERNODLE, JR. v. THOMAS E. BONEY.

(Filed 19 December 1963.)

Appeal and Error § 32—

Where the record is not docketed in the Supreme Court within the time ■allowed by ithe rules so that the appeal is carried beyond the term at which ■it should have been heard, ifahe 'Supreme Court will dismiss the appeal *ex mero motu.*

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, J.,*September, 1962 Civil Term, AlamaNCe Superior Court.

*Clarence Ross, B. F. Wood for plaintiff appellee.*

*John D. Xanthos for defendant appellant.*

PeR CuRiam.

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this action was entered in the Superior Court on September 19, 1962. The defendant on that day gave notice of appeal. The court allowed defendant sixty days for the service of the oaise on. 'appeal and the plaintiff thirty days thereafter to .serve 'countercase or to file exceptions. Date of the service of the ease or of any oountercase does mot appear. The parties agree on the case on appeal, but the date of the agreement is not disclosed. The 'combined time for the service of the case and the oounter-oase expired on December 19, 1962. The appeal should have been filed in this Court by 10:00 :a.m., on April 23, 1963 and should have been heard on Tuesday, May 21, 1963, and successive days. The appeal was actually docketed on June 23,1963. The delay in. docketing carried the case beyond the Spring Term at which it should have been heard.

This Court, *ex mero motu,*dismisses the appellant’s appeal for failure to file within the time fixed by the rules. Defendant will pay the costs.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2010317EN.01000503.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/5

---

Assignment of Mr Gratsias to Chambers

2010/C 317/11

On 26 October 2010 the Plenary Meeting of the General Court decided, further to Mr Gratsias’ taking up of his duties as Judge, to amend as follows the decision of the Plenary Meeting of 20 September 2010 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers.

For the period from 26 October 2010 until the date of the taking up of his duties by the Bulgarian Judge, the Judges will be assigned as follows:

| | To the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

To the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

To the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges.

| | To the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:


  Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

To the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

To the Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr Gratsias, Judges.

| | To the Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges: | Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber; |
| --- | --- | --- |

To the Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

To the Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

| | Ms Labucka, Judge; |
| --- | --- |

Ms Labucka, Judge;

| | Mr Gratsias, Judge. |
| --- | --- |

Mr Gratsias, Judge.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         476,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  652,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,102,522
<PP&E>                                          72,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                 186,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,102,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,017,628
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,890
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,084,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,102,522
<SALES>                                      4,748,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,748,660
<CGS>                                        4,033,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,090,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,368,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,667
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,370,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,370,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CLINTON LEON MOORMAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv363-RH/WCS

STAR METRO et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 5. No objections have been filed. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without

prejudice.” The clerk must close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 26, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Lee Costerd, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wolverine
      Exploration Inc. for the period ended February 28, 2009 (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 Wolverine Exploration Inc.                                                                    

Dated: August 14, 2009



| | /s/
      Lee Costerd                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Lee Costerd                                                         
| | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director 
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
| | Wolverine Exploration Inc.                                          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Wolverine
Exploration Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Exploration Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50824

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL JIMENEZ-VASQUEZ, also known as Alejandro

Saenz-Lugo, also known as Daniel Cruz-Cruz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-308-ALL-PRM

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Daniel JimenezVasquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Ex 10.11 FY15 Base Salaries










Exhibit 10.11 
FISCAL YEAR 2015 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BASE SALARIES 
The Company’s executive officers are scheduled to receive the following annual base salaries for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 in their current positions: 
 
	
					
	Name/Title
	  
	FY2015 Salary
	 

	David L. Martin
President and Chief Executive Officer
	  
	 
	$567,000
	  

	Laurence L. Betterley
Chief Financial Officer
	  
	 
	$347,259
	  

	Robert J. Thatcher
Chief Healthcare Policy Officer
	  
	 
	$327,897
	  

	Paul Koehn
Senior Vice President of Quality and Operations
	  
	 
	$315,316
	 

	Kevin Kenny
Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing
	  
	 
	$312,284