alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         120,126
<SECURITIES>                                   892,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,766
<INVENTORY>                                      3,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,092,868
<PP&E>                                         601,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 153,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,907,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          178,069
<BONDS>                                      1,263,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,477
<OTHER-SE>                                     305,969
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,907,615
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,940
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,624 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (214,242) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,998)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (204,801)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (641)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (205,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.36)
        

</TABLE>
tmok08ex_10-27.htm


    Exhibit 10.27

     

    SUMMARY OF ANNUAL
NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    


    


    


    I.           Board Members (Other than the Chairman)

    


    A.         Annual
Cash Compensation

     

         Annual Cash
Retainer:                                                                                           $70,000

     

         Additional Cash Retainer for Chairman
of Audit
Committee:                          $20,000

     

         Additional
Cash Retainer for Chairman of Compensation

                 Committee:                                                                                                               $10,000

     

         Additional
Cash Retainer for Chairs of Nominating and

                 Corporate
Governance Committee and Strategy
Committee:                           $ 
5,000

     

    
      	
              B.  

            	
              Meeting
      Fees

            


    

     

         If a Board
Committee meets more than six times during a calendar year, then the members
thereof shall receive the following fees for attending meetings that exceed six


                
in number:

     

    
      	
                  
      Committee Meeting Fees:

            	
              $1,500
      per meeting attended in person, on a day other than a day on which the
      Board meets

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              $1,000
      per meeting attended in person, on the same day as a Board
      meeting

            
	 
      	 
      
	
                   Telephone
      Committee

                  
      Meeting Fees:

            	
               

              $750
      per meeting attended by conference telephone

            
	 
      	 
      


    

     

         Directors
are also reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending
meetings.

    


    C.        
Equity
Compensation

     

                
Annual equity grants are made upon the recommendation of the Compensation
Committee.


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    II.         Chairman of the
Board

    


    A.         Annual
Cash Compensation

     

         Annual Cash
Compensation (in lieu of annual retainer and meeting
fees):          $250,000

    


    B.         Equity
Compensation

     

         Annual
equity grants are made upon the recommendation of the Compensation
Committee.
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

DEFENDANT JAMES LARKIN’S JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ANDREW PADILLA’S MOTION FOR 

ITEMIZATION OF BRADY/GIGLIO MATERIAL 

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., State Bar No. 135311 (admitted pro hac vice)

tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth M. Miller, State Bar No. 151874 (admitted pro hac vice)

kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

John L. Littrell, State Bar No. 221601 (admitted pro hac vice)

jlittrell@bmkattorneys.com

Anthony R. Bisconti, State Bar No. 15874 (admitted pro hac vice)

tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone (949) 369-3700 / Facsimile (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Defendant

James Larkin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DEFENDANT LARKIN’S JOINDER IN 

DEFENDANT ANDREW PADILLA’S 

MOTION FOR ITEMIZATION OF 

BRADY/GIGLIO MATERIAL

Defendant James Larkin hereby joins in the Motion for Itemization of Brady/Giglio

Material filed by Defendant Andrew Padilla on August 20, 2018 (the “Motion”). See Dkt. 

273. By this joinder, Mr. Larkin adopts the positions set forth in the Motion as fully set 

forth herein. The issues raised in the Motion apply with equal force to Mr. Larkin.

Dated: August 22, 2018 BIENERT MILLER & KATZMAN PLC 

/s/ Kenneth M. Miller 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

James Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 277 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 2
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

2

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT ANDREW PADILLA’S MOTION FOR ITEMIZATION OF 

BRADY/GIGLIO MATERIAL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 22nd day of August, 2018, I electronically transmitted a PDF 

version of this document to the Clerk of Court, using the CM/ECF System, for filing and 

for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants listed 

below.

/s/ Toni Thomas 

Toni Thomas

CM/ECF Registrants: 

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Paul Cambria, pcambria@lglaw.com 

Tom Bienert, tbienert@bmkattorneys.com 

Bruce Feder, bf@federlawpa.com 

Michael Kimerer, mdk@kimerer.com 

Stephen Weiss, sweiss@karpweiss.com

476018-1

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 277 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 2
exh10-2e.htm


    
      EXHIBIT
10.2(e)

      


      AMENDMENT
NO. 1

      TO
THE

      AMENDED
AND RESTATED CENTURYTEL, INC.

      2002
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

      


      WHEREAS,
CenturyTel, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the CenturyTel, Inc. 2002 Management
Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”);

      


      WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 9.10 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Board of
Directors of the Company (the “Board”) at any time; and

      


      WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to
amend the Plan as set forth below.

      


      NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      


      1.      Section
9.13(b) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated, in its entirety, as
follows:

      


      (b)  Upon a Change of Control, all
outstanding Incentives granted pursuant to this Plan shall automatically become
fully vested and exercisable, all restrictions or limitations on any Incentives
shall automatically lapse and, unless otherwise provided in the Incentive
Agreement, all performance criteria and other conditions relating to the payment
of Incentives shall be deemed to be achieved at the target level without the
necessity of action by any person.

      


      2.      Except as
herein expressly amended, the Plan shall continue in full force and
effect.

      


                     
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this amendment on this 24th day of
October, 2008.

    

     

     

    
      	 
      	
              CENTURYTEL,
      INC.

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:/s/  R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.         
      

            
	 
      	
                   R.
      Stewart Ewing, Jr.

            
	 
      	
                   Executive
      Vice President and

            
	 
      	
                   Chief
      Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terina Renae BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10002.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

*384Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Terina Renae Brown (“Brown”), federal inmate #30881-077, appeals the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for a reduction in her sentence. Brown received a stipulated sentence as permitted by Fed. R.Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C). Because Brown’s sentence was imposed in accordance with Rule 11(e)(1)(C), 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) does not apply. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown’s motion. *United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Gary Paul FISK, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 16106.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

July 19, 1989.

*903Nancy A. McKerrow, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Movant sought under Rule 24.035 to vacate convictions for burglary and stealing. He pled guilty to those charges and received concurrent terms of eight and four years’ imprisonment. Following an eviden-tiary hearing the trial court made findings of fact, conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals.

Movant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he entered the pleas of guilty voluntarily “because the record demonstrates that appellant pleaded guilty out of fear, in that appellant believed that counsel had failed to properly investigate the circumstances of the charged burglary and stealing which left appellant with the fear of going to trial unprepared.”

Movant had the burden of proving his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 24.035(h). Appellate review of the trial court’s determination is limited to deciding whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court were clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j).

The credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court which did not have to believe movant’s testimony regarding his claimed fear even if partially undisputed. *Trimble v. State,*588 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo.App.1979). See also *Sanders v. State,*770 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Mo.App.1989) (defendant waives complaints of attorney’s failure to investigate when he pleads guilty). There was also evidence from which the trial court could find that the attorney had properly investigated the circumstances of the charges. The trial court’s findings, conclusions and judgment are supported by the evidence and were not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16328]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket 37554]


Notice of Order Adjusting the Standard Foreign Fare Level Index

    Section 41509(e) of Title 49 of the United States Code requires 
that the Department, as successor to the Civil Aeronautics Board, 
establish a Standard Foreign Fare Level (SFFL) by adjusting the SFFL 
base periodically by percentage changes in actual operating costs per 
available seat-mile (ASM). Order 80-2-69 established the first interim 
SFFL, and Order 96-3-61 established the currently effective two-month 
SFFL applicable through May 31, 1996.
    In establishing the SFFL for the two-month period beginning June 1, 
1996, we have projected non-fuel costs based on the year ended December 
31, 1995 data, and have determined fuel prices on the basis of the 
latest available experienced monthly fuel cost levels as reported to 
the Department.
    By Order 96-6-41 fares may be increased by the following adjustment 
factors over the October 1979 level:

Atlantic.......................................................   1.4474
Latin America..................................................   1.5312
Pacific........................................................   1.5214
                                                                        

    For Further Information Contact: Keith A. Shangraw (202) 366-2439.

    By the Department of Transportation.

    Dated: June 20, 1996.
Patrick V. Murphy,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16328 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Donnell Alphonso Luckett,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14285

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

US Bank National Association,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation. Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and any objections thereto, the Court

hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is

further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order is

hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: January 5, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on January 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14285-NGE-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 01/05/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 109
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16112]

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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. 301-105]

Initiation of Section 302 Investigation and Request for Public 
Comment: Practices of the Government of Turkey Regarding the Imposition 
of a Discriminatory Tax on Box Office Revenues: Correction

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Correction of docket number on notice of initiation of 
investigation.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) filed a notice 
of initiation of investigation and request for public comment on 
Monday, June 17, 1996 (61 FR 30646), with respect to certain acts, 
policies and practices of the Government of Turkey that may result in 
the discriminatory treatment of U.S. films in Turkey. The docket number 
stated in that notice was incorrect. The correct docket number is set 
forth above. All further references to this investigation should bear 
this corrected docket number, including references in any public 
comments filed pursuant to the terms of the earlier notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Papovich, Deputy Assistant USTR 
for Intellectual Property, (202) 395-6864, or Thomas Robertson, 
Associate General Counsel, (202) 395-6800.
Irving A. Williamson,
Chairman, Section 301 Committee.
[FR Doc. 96-16112 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7380

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KINGSLEY CHUKWUEZI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR97-229-PJM, CA-00-1174-PJM) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 16, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kingsley Chukwuezi, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven Michael Dettelbach, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on September 20, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 21, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Kingsley Chukwuezi seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chukwuezi , Nos. CR-97- 229-PJM; CA-00-1174-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2000). * We deny Chukwuezi’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEVANDER,

Plaintiff, Case Number 08-14241

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE REPLY

The plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees on April 1, 2009. The defendant filed a

response on April 6, 2009, in opposition. Under the local rules, reply briefs may be filed within

seven days of when the response is served. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(2)(C). On April 28, 2009, after

the time for filing a reply brief had passed, the plaintiff filed a motion asking that the Court allow

him to file a tardy reply brief. In the motion, the plaintiff argues that there will be no prejudice to

the defendant. However, the plaintiff has failed to identify any reason, much less good cause, for

an extension of the time to file a reply brief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Therefore, the motion will

be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file late reply [dkt. #38]

is DENIED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 1, 2009

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 46, PageID.443 Filed 05/01/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on May 1, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 46, PageID.444 Filed 05/01/09 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16468]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for the NSF Science and Technology Centers 
(STC) Program; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings:


    Name: Advisory Committee for the NSF Science and Technology 
Centers (STC) Program.
    Date and Time: July 15, 1996.
    Place: Room 1235; National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director, Office of 
Science and Technology Infrastructure, Rm. 1270, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1040.
    Purpose of Meeting: To advise the NSF on the future of its 
Science and Technology Centers Program.
    Agenda: To review the history and evaluation of Science and 
Technology Centers (STC) Program and develop a recommendation on the 
future of the STC Program.

    Dated: June 24, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16468 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Accredited Members Holding Corporation (the “Registrant”) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Lavigne Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 the Company.




Date:
August 8, 2011By:
/s/ David Lavigne

David Lavigne

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer)
#### Keith D. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41982.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 1, 1990.

Gregory C. Wells, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, P.J., and CLARK and MANFORD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 45 Att. 14

Dockets.Justia.com
#### David Mark CHESNUT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49626.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 11, 1995.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and BERREY and ULRICH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).