alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BONUS AGREEMENT

                            Dated: December ___, 1998

         Star Medical Technologies,  Inc. (the "Company"),  Medical Technologies
Acquisition,  Inc. ("Merger Sub"), Coherent, Inc. ("Coherent"),  Palomar Medical
Technologies,  Inc. ("Palomar"), Dr. Robert E. Grove, Dr. James Z. Holtz and Dr.
David  C.  Mundinger  are  parties  to  that  certain   Agreement  and  Plan  of
Reorganization (the "Agreement") dated as of December ___, 1998.

         By executing this Bonus Agreement,  Palomar hereby agrees to pay to the
individual  employees of the Company listed on Schedule A hereto (and subject to
the withholding  specified on such schedule),  at the Closing (as defined in the
Agreement) an aggregate  amount of $950,000,  provided that Drs. Grove and Holtz
certify to Palomar as of the  Closing  that the Company has been able to produce
the  cumulative  number of units  through the month  ending prior to Closing set
forth  opposite  such  month on the  shipment  forecast  below  (the  "Requisite
Units"). If both (a) the certification provided for in the previous sentence has
not been  provided,  and (b) the Company has not produced and shipped (or is not
ready to ship, as the case may be) the Requisite  Units,  then Palomar shall pay
pro rata to the persons listed on Schedule A an amount equal to $950,000 times a
fraction,  the  numerator  of which is equal to the  cumulative  number of units
shipped through the month ending prior to Closing plus the total number of units
in  finished  goods at the end of the month  ending  prior to  Closing,  and the
denominator of which is equal to the cumulative  number of units in the shipment
forecast through the month ending prior to Closing.  If the amount due hereunder
is less than $475,000,  then no payments will be due  hereunder,  and in no case
shall the amount paid be in excess of $950,000.


         Month                  Shipment Forecast (Units)

        January                             20
       February                             20
         March                              45

         The parties hereto further agree and acknowledge that it is a condition
to the  enforceability  of that certain Power of Attorney and Proxy of even date
with the Agreement that the payments due under this Bonus  Agreement are made at
the Closing as required herein.



                  [REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]




<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Palomar, Company, Dr. Grove and Dr. Holtz have duly
executed this Bonus Agreement, as of the date and year first above written.

"PALOMAR"                                        "COMPANY"

PALOMAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.               STAR MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



By:                                              By:
    -----------------------------                    ---------------------------
Title:                                           Title:


---------------------------------                -------------------------------
Robert E. Grove                                  James Z. Holtz
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.29% 0.25% -1.71% -4.09%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Apply 3 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $200,000 in 2017, with the 

$200,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017. Give proportional benefit credit for additional earnings in 

AIME for benefit computation.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

May 14, 2010

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
EXHIBIT 31.1

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the registrant); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2009 |  | /S/    FRIEDHELM BLOBEL,
PH.D.                 
|                     |  | Friedhelm Blobel, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6245

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUINCY ANDRE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00152-H-1; 5:19-cv-00317-

H)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quincy Andre Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quincy Andre Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,954,767
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         628,104
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            24,825,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      48,170,475
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        49,893,190
<LOANS>                                    130,514,533
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,919,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             226,922,803
<DEPOSITS>                                 179,250,554
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,054,822
<LONG-TERM>                                 22,042,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,332
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,573,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             226,922,803
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,250,758
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              722,237
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               230,085
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,203,080
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,597,453
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,890,934
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,312,146
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  194,305
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,088,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                779,270
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     578,436
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   578,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.35
<LOANS-NON>                                    345,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   219,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,122,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,831,241
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  234,739
<RECOVERIES>                                   129,110
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,919,917
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,919,917
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANK NELLOM, FRANK NELLOM AND

COMPANY,

Petitioner

v.

THOMAS W. WOLF, GOVERNOR, AND

JOSH SHAPIRO, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 97 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of October

, 2017, the King’s Bench Petition is DENIED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT ALVIN D. CLAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-547 September 17, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge. Alvin D. Clayton, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 23.1


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-13719) pertaining to the American Disposal Services, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 26, 1997, except as to Note 5 for which
the date is March 21, 1997, and as to Note 10 for which the date is March 25,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of American Disposal
Services, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 1997
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration Statements, File Numbers 33-47479,  33-879650,  33-96436, 33-97760,
33-99792,  33-99794,  333-000140,   333-001070,  333-3424,  333-5781,  333-7097,
333-10681,  333-18003,  333-87908,  33-97710, 333-18347,  333-21095,  333-22725,
333-25209, 333-28251, 333-42129, 333-55821, 333-57261, 333-57403 and 333-70391.

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 7, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4504]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GP94-2-002]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Refund Report

February 17, 1995
    Take notice that on February 14, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing a refund report for the 
refund made by Columbia on November 16, 1994, pursuant to orders issued 
in Docket No. GP94-2. As a result of the Commission's June 23, 1994 
order in that docket, Columbia was required to make an additional 
refund for the difference between the accrued restricted investment 
arrangement (RIA) interest that has been refunded and interest 
recalculated using the Commission-prescribed interest rates from the 
time the RIA refunds were received through March 2, 1993, the date the 
RIA was established.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests should 
be filed on or before February 27, 1995. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies 
of Columbia's filings are on file with the Commission and are available 
to public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4504 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3825 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Office 

Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2022 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as 

the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RON WRIGHT POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, 

6 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ron Wright 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3825 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Of3 fice Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8260-8261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3447]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION


Request for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Collection 
of Information Under 29 CFR Part 2645, Extension of Special Withdrawal 
Liability Rules

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation has requested review by the Office of Management 
and Budget for a collection of information (1212-0023) 
[[Page 8261]] contained in its regulation on Extension of Special 
Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR part 2645).

ADDRESSES: All written comments should be addressed to: Office of 
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1212-0023), 
Washington, DC 20503. The request for review will be available for 
public inspection at the PBGC Communications and Public Affairs 
Department, Suite 240, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 
between the hours at 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah C. Murphy, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Suite 340, 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 
20005-4026, 202-326-4024 (202-326-4179 for TTY and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is contained 
in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (``PBGC's'') regulation 
on Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules, 29 CFR part 2645.
    Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 (``ERISA'') provide for the PBGC's issuance of 
regulations under which the PBGC may approve a multiemployer pension 
plan's adoption of special rules for determining whether a complete or 
partial withdrawal from the plan has occurred. Section 4203(f) also 
sets standards for the approval of such special rules. The PBGC's 
regulation on Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules requires 
the plan sponsor of a plan that adopts special rules to submit 
information about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the 
plan operates with its request for PBGC approval of the rules. The PBGC 
uses that information in determining whether the plan's special 
withdrawal liability rules meet the requirements of ERISA.
    The PBGC estimates that it receives three requests per year under 
the regulation and that each request takes sixteen hours to prepare. 
Thus, the total estimated burden is 48 hours per year.

    Issued at Washington, DC, this 7th day of February 1995.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-3447 Filed 2-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-M
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of CEO pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Lisa
Y. Roskens, Chief Executive Officer of the general partner of the General
Partner of America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. (the “Company”), certify
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:





(1)
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);
and





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








Date:  August
7, 2008


/s/ Lisa Y.
Roskens


Lisa Y.
Roskens


Chief
Executive Officer


Burlington
Capital Group LLC, acting in its capacity as general partner of the General
Partner of America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P.








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and will be retained by
America First Tax Exempt Investors, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### DUPLIN COUNTY v. SUDIE TEACHEY et al.

(Filed 22 March, 1933.)

Appeal by heirs at law from *Granmer, J.,*at December Term, 1932, of Duplin.

Civil action to foreclose certain tax certificates, and apparently converted into a special proceeding among the defendants for the sale of lands to make assets.

From a judgment establishing certain claims against the estate of M. C. Teachey, deceased, and ordering a sale of lands to pay same, his heirs at law appeal.

*George R. Ward for plaintiff.*

*A. J. Blanton and John A. Gavin for defendants.*

Pee OueiaM.

The proceeding seems to be somewhat anomalous, but .as the pleadings have been omitted from the transcript, and no error is apparent, the appeal will be dismissed on authority of *Riggan v. Harrison,*203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358, and *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N. C., 188, 156 S. E., 126.

Appeal dismissed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

p1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143464

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 14 3464 COA: 303825 Roscommon CC: 10-006079-FC GARD ANTHONY VERBEKE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for le ave to appeal the June 8, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### T. J. CRIST et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

Division One,

June 1, 1911.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit Court. — Now. *Matt G. Reynolds,*Judge.

Dismisssed.

*Geo. 8. Grover*for appellants. -

*L. 8. Walther*and *T. P. Young*for respondents.

WOODSON, J.

— The facts of this case are identical with those in the case of Hicks v. City of St. Louis, disposed of at this sitting of the court, and reported at page 647; and what was there said, is equally applicable here. Consequently, the appeal in this case is dismissed.

All concur.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 0.60% 0.83% -1.09% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Reduce benefits by 5 percent for those newly eligible for benefits in 20

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p