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

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2894-2 Filed: 07/08/19 Entered: 07/08/19 15:13:07 Page 1

of 3
COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

MAY 1, 2019 THROUGH MAY 31, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

001 First Day Administration Motions 0 $0 

002 Omnibus & Miscellaneous Court Appearances 9.2 $6,385 

003 Legal Research 9.4 $3,875 

004 General Case Administration 142.7 $40,160 

005 Automatic Stay Proceedings 69.7 $46,375 

006 Initial Debtor Interview, Meeting of Creditors, Creditor Inquiries 7.4 $5,075 

007 Professional Retention and Compensation – Keller & Benvenutti 21.4 $12,400 

008 Professional Retention and Compensation – Other Professionals 27.4 $13,625 

009 Financing and Cash Collateral .5 $325 

010 DIP Lenders – Communication and Negotiations 0 $0 

011 Creditors Committees – Communication & Negotiations 0 $0 

012 Tort Committees – Communication & Negotiation 12.2 $9,460 

013 US Trustee – Communications & Negotiation 0 $0 

014 Employee Matters 4.5 $2,575 

015 Supplier Issues 7.4 $5,075 

016 General Asset Analysis and Recovery .8 $640 

017 Sale or Use of Property - Motions .8 $640 

018 Executory Contract Issues 2.4 $1,060 

019 Tax Issues 0 $0 

020 Regulatory Issues 0 $0 

021 Plan – Advice, Strategy and Negotiation 3.6 $2,790 

022 Plan Disclosure Statements – Preparation of Documents 2.3 $1,495 

023 Plan Confirmation 0 $0 

024 Plan Implementation and Transition 0 $0 

025 FERC Adversary Proceeding 5.4 $4,130 

026 Wildfire Litigation 7.7 $4,945 

027 Claims Review 4.3 $2,660 

028 Claim Disputes and Resolution .6 $390 

029 Avoidance Action Analysis 0 $0 

030 Non-working Travel 0 $0 

031 [Expenses – See Expense Summary] n/a n/a 

032 USDC Probation Compliance and Monitoring 34.8 $21,220 

033 Equity Committee 0 $0 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2894-2 Filed: 07/08/19 Entered: 07/08/19 15:13:07 Page 2

of 3
 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

034 Third Party Injunction Action (PERA) .2 $160 

035 Government Relations and Communications 0 $0 

036 Miscellaneous Litigation Issues and Advice 15.7 $9,990 

TOTAL 390.4 $195,450 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2894-2 Filed: 07/08/19 Entered: 07/08/19 15:13:07 Page 3

of 3
Exhibit 10.25



March 30, 1998

Bill Jones
Interlink Computer Sciences
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Bill,

I am very  pleased to offer you the  position  of Vice  President  of  Marketing
reporting to me. In this new role, you will have full management  responsibility
for the  Companys  marketing  organization.  You will also become an  executive
officer of the Company and a member of my management  team. Your  appointment to
this  position   also   requires  a  significant   adjustment  to  your  current
compensation and option position in the Company.

Effective  April 1,  1998,  your new annual  salary  will be  $196,000.00.  This
consists of a base salary of  $140,000.00  and an on-target  bonus  potential of
$56,000.00  (40% of your base salary) . Human resources will explain the details
of the executive bonus program later.

In addition,  your will receive 57,000 stock options  subject to formal approval
by the  Companys  Board of Directors at the next Board  meeting.  These options
will be divided into two separate  grants.  The first grant,  which  consists of
40,000  options,  will be granted  according to the terms and  conditions of the
Companys  regular  stock  option grant  guidelines.  The second grant of 17,000
options will be  performance  based.  Again,  human  resources  will explain the
details of this option grant later.

Bill,  I know  you have  worked  long and  hard  and I am  delighted  that  this
opportunity  has been made  available to you.  Thank you for your hard work thus
far and I look forward to a long and successful career together.



Congratulations,



A. J. Berkeley
President & CEO

                                       47
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
              (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(A) AND (B))


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby
individually certifies in his capacity as an officer of Metaldyne Corporation
(the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of and for the
periods covered by such Report.



Date: May 7, 2003                             /s/ William M. Lowe, Jr.
                                              ------------------------
                                              William M. Lowe, Jr.
                                              Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350(a) and (b)), is not a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to
the extent permitted by law, provided by each of the above signatories to the
extent of his respective knowledge.
#### DELMAR FIRMIN, Respondent, v. JAMES FIRMIN, Appellant.

*Trespass*— *cutting cmd scurrying away logs*— *Damages*— detm'mined *by t7ie value of the logs as they lay upon the land.*

In an action brought to recover the damages, sustained by defendant’s wrongful act in cutting and carrying away logs from the land of the plaintiff, the latter is entitled to recover the value of the logs as they lay upon the land, and he is not restricted to the value of the trees as they stood.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of'a referee.

The action was brought to recover damages sustained in consequence of the wrongful act of the defendant, in cutting and carrying away certain logs and trees from the lands of the plaintiff.

*Edwin Countryman,*for the appellant.

*S. 8. Morgan,*for the respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The only question made on the appeal is, whether the referee was right in giving the plaintiff, as damages, the value of the logs as they lay on the plaintiff’s land after they had been- cut. The *572defendant insists that the plaintiff could recover only the value of the trees as they stood.

We think the referee was right. The case of *Skinner*v. *Wheeler*(5 N. Y. S. C., 709) decides nothing on this point. The case of *Stanton*v. *Pritchard*(11 S. C. N. Y., 266). did not involve the question here made. That was an action for trespass in cutting down timber. The land was wood land; the timber cut principally hemlock. The plaintiff recovered and the judgment was affirmed. The court, among other things, had charged that the defendant was liable for the value of any timber that he carried away, although he did not cut it down. The defendant offered to show the value of the lot before, and the value after the trespass was committed, and claimed the difference to be the rule of damages. The court excluded this evidence. That decision, therefore, does not conflict with the referee’s rule of damages in this case.

Nor does the case of *Van Deusen*v. *Young*(29 N. Y., 9) conflict with this rule.

When the defendant had cut down the plaintiff’s trees and had cut them into logs, the ownership was still in the plaintiff. *(Church v.*Lee, 5 Johns., 348.) Even though that trespass was not willful, yet there was not such a change of material as to make the logs the property of the defendant. *(Silsbury*v. *McCoon,*3 N. Y., 379, and authorities there cited.) And, therefore, when the, defendant took the logs away from the plaintiff’s land he was liable for their value, such as it was at the time and place of such taking. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — LeaRNed, P. J., Bocees and BoardmaN, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 24, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10511 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus THOMAS REEDY; JANICE REEDY, Defendants-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:00-CR-54-1-Y 4:00-CR-54-2-Y

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Thomas and Janice Reedy appeal the sentences imposed following remand to the district court for resentencing. The Government argues that Janice Reedy’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Janice Reedy contends that the two appeals have been consolidated and that the notice of appeal is timely because it was filed within 10 days of the last entered judgment, which is the judgment against Thomas Reedy.No. 03-10511 -2- A timely notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. United States v. Winn , 948 F.2d 145, 153 (5th Cir. 1991) . Pursuant to F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), the time for filing a notice of appeal runs from “the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed.” Because Janice Reedy is appealing from the judgment entered against her, her argument is without merit, and her notice of appeal is untimely. A district court may grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(4). Because Janice Reedy’s notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the time for filing a timely notice of appeal, it should be construed as a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. See United States v. Golding , 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, the appeals are held in abeyance, and Janice Reedy’s case is REMANDED to the district court for a finding under F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(4). Id. Upon making the finding, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.
REMANDED; APPEALS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING REMAND.
#### Herman Bradshaw, Respondent, v. Clement C. Moore, Appellant.

Judgment modified so .as to provide that defendant, his agents and servants are enjoined from taking possession of the property, etc., “ except in accordance with the terms of the lease as determined by the court in its second finding,” and as so modified, affirmed, with costs-. No opinion.

All concur.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mohammad Khalil, do declare and state as follows:

1. I am employed by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”)1, the claims and 

noticing agent for the Debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

2. On May 4, 2023, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Kroll 

caused the following document to be served via First Class Mail on the Notice Parties Service List 

attached hereto as Exhibit A: 

• Notice of Failure to Perfect Appeal [Docket No. 13694] 

3. I have reviewed the Notices of Electronic Filing (NEF) for the above-listed documents, 

and I understand that parties listed in each NEF as having received notice through electronic mail were 

electronically served with that document through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. 

4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the

foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 

thereto.

1 Effective March 29, 2022, Prime Clerk LLC changed its name to Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13751 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 15:40:30 Page 1

of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed this 5th day of May 2023, at New York, NY.

/s/ Mohammad Khalil

Mohammad Khalil

2 SRF 69445

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13751 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 15:40:30 Page 2

of 4
Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13751 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 15:40:30 Page 3

of 4
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via First Class Mail

Name Address

Jannings, Spiro Address on file

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.

Case No. 19‐30088 (DM) Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13751 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 15:40:30 Pag

of 4
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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

          - 12 CFR Parts 611, 613, 615, 619 and 620
          - RIN 3052-AC43

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency), through the FCA Board (Board), issued a final rule under parts 611, 613, 615, 619 and 620 on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18726) amending FCA's regulations to clarify director election processes and update FCA regulations to incorporate interpretations made through bookletters to Farm Credit System institutions. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                         during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is May 24, 2010.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         Under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 2252, the regulation amending 12 CFR parts 611, 613, 615, 619 and 620 published on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18726) is effective May 24, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elna Luopa, Senior Corporate Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498, TTY (703) 883-4434, or

Laura D. McFarland, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4020.

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10))

Dated: May 26, 2010.

Roland E. Smith,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13110 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision

          - [AC-44: OTS No. H-4704]

                    Notice is hereby given that on May 14, 2010, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Oneida Financial, MHC and Oneida Savings Bank, Oneida, New York, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail                     *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, NJ 07311.                

Dated: May 26, 2010.

By the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Sandra E. Evans,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2010-13209 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
#### In the Matter of the Application of William Hecht for Admission to the Bar.

Application denied, upon the .ground that the applicant has not resided within the State for six months previous to his application, pursuant to rule 1 of the General Rules of Practice.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4857 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify payment under 

the Medicare program for outpatient department procedures that utilize 

drugs as supplies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. SCHNEIDER, and Mrs. CAPPS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 modify 

payment under the Medicare program for outpatient department procedures that utilize drugs as supplies, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Equal Access 

5 to Treatments Act of 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4857 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM FOR 

2 OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT PROCEDURES 

3 THAT UTILIZE DRUGS AS SUPPLIES. 

4 Section 1833(t)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(2)(G)) is amended by striking ‘‘shall’’ and 

6 all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘shall— 

7 ‘‘(i) create additional groups of cov8 ered OPD services that classify separately 

9 those procedures that utilize contrast 

10 agents from those that do not; 

11 ‘‘(ii) create and implement, for serv12 ices furnished not later than the date of 

13 the enactment of this clause and in a 

14 budget neutral manner, additional groups 

15 of covered OPD services that classify sepa16 rately those procedures that utilize a drug 

17 (other than contrast agents and diagnostic 

18 radiopharmaceuticals) that both— 

19 ‘‘(I) has a cost above the drug 

20 packaging threshold; and 

21 ‘‘(II) functions as a supply when 

22 used in a diagnostic test or procedure; 

23 from those that do not; and’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with BILLS
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 1

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13033 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 10:41:13 Page 2

of 2
null

2016-09-20

254.75443

eng - Argued: 2016-09-20. Docket number: 5-15-0534WC
-1- 

EXHIBIT 

To 

Order and Notice of Opportunity to Object to Motions to File 

Claim After Claims Bar Date by Pro Se Claimants 

Through September 30, 2022 

Motion 

Filing 

Date

Motion 

Dkt. No.

Claimant POC 

Filing 

Date

POC No.

9/19/22 12976 Theodore L. Bake 1/2/20 96263 

9/23/22 12999 Sarah Lynch 9/9/22 108895 

9/27/22 13006 Marie Mitchell N/A N/A 

9/28/22 13011 Oden O Mena Borja et al. 7/1/22 108664 

9/28/22 13013 Orlando Kai O'Shea N/A N/A 

9/30/22 13028 Dean Meyerson and Rowan 

Artemoff-Meyerson 

N/A N/A 

9/30/22 13030 Stephen Regis Minaidis 6/26/22 108569 

9/30/22 13031 Shane Steven Ronayne 6/17/22 108530 

9/30/22 13032 Melissa Lynn Avilla 9/7/22 108886 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13038-1 Filed: 10/03/22 Entered: 10/03/22 16:04:27 Page 1

of 1
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 1 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 2 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 3 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 4 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 5 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2942    Filed: 07/11/19    Entered: 07/11/19 16:11:02    Page 6 of6
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2672

BETTY DELORIS JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-98-125-B) Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 15, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.John P. Bradwell, SHORTIDGE & SHORTIDGE, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. John M. Sacchetti, Regional Chief Counsel, Lori Karimoto, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John F. Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Betty Deloris Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record,briefs, and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Therefore, we grant the motion to submit the case on the briefs and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Apfel , No. CA-98-125-B (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED