alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; AA-3 Member Conflict Applications.                     

*Date:*                         October 15, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         5 p.m. to 6 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Katrina L Foster, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Inst on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm. 3042, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-4032,                         *katrina@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20640 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
exv10w28



 








EXHIBIT 10.28




February 7, 2005




Dear Jay:



ABM accepts your offer to remain as a consultant for a period of one-year at a consulting fee
of $8,333/ month effective as of February 1, 2005. You will be an independent contractor, not an
employee, and entitled to reimbursement for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred at my request or
direct authorization. You agree that you will be available for consultation for up to 30 hours per
month at mutually agreed upon times. You will also agree to remain as a director of SSA Security,
Inc. and Elite Security, Inc. until outstanding security license applications are granted and as an
officer of Elite Security, Inc. for a period of two weeks from the date of this letter. We will
mutually agree upon other services that you will perform.



You will be eligible for indemnification to the extent set forth under ABM’s Bylaws and, in your
capacity as a director or officer of an ABM subsidiary, under ABM’s directors and officers
liability insurance.



ABM and you agree to waive the written notice period for terminating your employment under your
Corporate Executive Employee Agreement effective as of November 1, 2003 (“Benton Agreement”). ABM
and you agree that it was our mutual intent at the time of execution of the Benton Agreement that
your employment terminate on January 31, 2005, and that your employment terminated effective such
date.



This consulting agreement will terminate upon your death or permanent disability or may be
terminated by you upon 30 days written notice. It may be terminated by ABM upon 30 days notice for
just cause. “Just cause” includes but is not limited to: (a) any theft or other dishonesty, (b)
material neglect of duties, (c) inability or unwillingness to perform duties, (d) abuse of alcohol
or other drugs, (e) breach of this Agreement, or (f) other material misconduct, unethical or
unlawful activity.








 









 







Please accept this offer by executing below and signing the attached letter of resignation.



We appreciate your ongoing efforts on ABM’s behalf.



Very truly yours,




AGREED AND ACCEPTED




/s/ Jess E. Benton




Jess E. Benton

DATED:           2/7/05          










Attachment
Exhibit 99.1




Frontier Communications


3 High Ridge Park


Stamford, CT 06905


203.614.5600


www.frontier.com







Frontier Communications Corporation Declares Second-Quarter Dividend




Stamford, Conn. – May 12, 2010 –Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE:FTR) announced today that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend payment of $0.25 per share of common stock, payable on June 30, 2010 to holders of record of common stock at the close of business on June 9, 2010.









About Frontier Communications




Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE: FTR) is a full-service communications provider and one of the largest local exchange telephone companies in the country serving rural areas and small and medium-sized towns and cities. Frontier is included in the S&P 500 Index. Frontier Communications offers telephone, television and Internet services, including wireless Internet data access, as well as bundled offerings, specialized bundles for small businesses and home offices, and data security solutions. Additional information about Frontier is available at www.frontier.com.










INVESTOR CONTACTS:


MEDIA CONTACT:David Whitehouse
Gregory Lundberg

Brigid SmithSVP & Treasurer
Director, Investor Relations

AVP Corp. Comm.(203) 614-5708
(203) 614-5044

(203) 614-5042david.whitehouse@frontiercorp.com
greg.lundberg@frontiercorp.com

brigid.smith@frontiercorp.com










###
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128146 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. REBECCA BAHAR, TODD COOK, Stephen J. Markman, DEMITRIOUS ECONOMIDES, SHERRY Justices KAYE, DOROTHY OWEN, JAMES RAMEY, RYCUS FLOOR COVERING, INC., STEVE SPIEGEL, and SUMMIT HOSPITALITY, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 128146 COA: 260127 Ingham CC: 03-000122-CB AMERITECH MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21,

2005 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.

d0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Osvaldo RIVERA-ALVARADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50184.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Osvaldo Rivera-Alvarado appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rivera contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Rivera maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Rivera acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appel*418lee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION 

             Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the*Securities Exchange Act of 1934* and that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

David Michael Dollins, Appellant

No. 06-14-00133-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Franklin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F8840). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, David Michael Dollins, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 12-2

                  PECO ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                    AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
                                   SEC METHOD
                                     ($000)

                                                    9 MONTHS
                                                     ENDED
                                                   09/30/97

NET INCOME                                         $393,884

ADD BACK:
- INCOME TAXES:
     OPERATING INCOME                               296,019
     NON-OPERATING INCOME                            23,274
                                                   --------
     NET TAXES                                      319,293

- FIXED CHARGES:
     INTEREST APPLICABLE TO DEBT                    269,885
     ANNUAL RENTALS                                   6,439
                                                   --------
     TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                            276,324

EARNINGS REQUIRED FOR PREFERRED DIVIDENDS:
     DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED STOCK                    13,527
     ADJUSTMENT TO PREFERRED DIVIDENDS*              10,965
                                                   --------
                                                     24,492

FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS              $300,816
                                                   ========

EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES AND
     FIXED CHARGES                                 $989,501
                                                   ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
     AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS         3.29
                                                   ========




 * ADDITIONAL CHARGE EQUIVALENT TO EARNINGS REQUIRED
   TO ADJUST DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED STOCK TO A PRE-TAX BASIS
# DMRA

# DMRA Column Descriptions
* 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

March 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCES JUANITA MERAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1454-2

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Frances Juanita Meraz appeals the district court’s sentence

following her conviction of transporting illegal aliens for

private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1324. Meraz

contends that the enhancement of her sentence for “reckless

endangerment” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5) was unreasonable

in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because

she was not charged with reckless endangerment, she did not admit

reckless endangerment, and the facts supporting the enhancement
No. 05-40286

-2-

were not proved to the jury. She further asserts that the

district court’s failure to make factual findings and the lack of

any clear record supporting the enhancement renders the sentence

unreasonable and requires remand for resentencing. Similarly,

she contends that remand is required because the district court

failed to make required factual findings regarding its denial of

her request for a minor role adjustment.

Meraz’s arguments are without merit. As Meraz was sentenced

after the decision in Booker, there was no requirement that any

sentencing facts be charged, admitted, or proved to a jury; the

district court was free to make factual findings in the same

manner as before Booker. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d

511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). 

Further, as the Government correctly points out, the

district court expressly adopted the findings of the Presentence

Report in its Statement of Reasons. Adoption of the PSR is

appropriate. See United States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 314 (5th

Cir. 2002); United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th

Cir. 1994). Meraz makes no argument to the contrary, other than

a conclusory assertion that the district court did not make

required factual findings. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Supermarkets General Corporation, Appellant, v Oster Apartments, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not in default under a lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), entered March 15, 1989, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, as tenant, and the defendant, as landlord, are successors in interest to a long-term commercial lease for the rental of premises constructed for supermarket use, located in a shopping center in West Nyack, New York. The lease calls for a percentage rent of 1% of the gross sales of the supermarket, unless 1% of the gross sales are less than $48,000 per annum, in which case the base rent is set at $48,000 annually.

In June 1988 the tenant closed the supermarket; however, it continued to tender to the landlord the base rent due. The landlord served the tenant with a notice of default in which it claimed that the tenant’s closing of the supermarket and its failure to pay a percentage rent above the base rent constituted a default under the lease.

The landlord moved and the tenant cross-moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, declined to award summary judgment to either party, finding that triable issues of fact existed with respect to whether the parties intended that the tenant be required to use the premises continually as a supermarket.

On appeal, the tenant contends that the lease contains no language which specifically obligates it to operate the premises continually as a supermarket. The landlord, relying upon the terms of the original lease between the parties’ predecessors in interest, which states that the premises were constructed for supermarket use, contends that the language of the lease, when taken as a whole, establishes that the parties intended a continual supermarket use; that the landlord and tenant understood and intended that satellite stores, which were constructed around the supermarket, would be dependent on the continued operation of the supermarket; that the base rent, which has been in effect for over 20 years, is far too low to justify the belief that the parties intended to perpetuate that amount with a tenant’s renewal option through 1996 without additional rental fees pursuant to the gross sales *476percentage formula; that an interpretation of the lease which authorizes the continuation of such an arrangement is so one sided as to be wholly beyond the possible intention of the parties; and that shortly after executing a renewal lease, the tenant closed the supermarket in bad faith, so as to protect and enhance the business of another of its supermarkets located nearby.

We agree with the Supreme Court that under the circumstances of this case, there are issues of fact precluding the awarding of summary judgment. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
1/6/2015 present OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

## OFFICIAL BUSINESS ,-v*»m&m*& o ^ 

# STATE OF TEXAS **§?£'i 

# 2^.2? /^S/fan!«iR $o°-265 PRIVATE USE ;.«. hx r^^^Mm 0002003152 janis 2015 cAiM^sNnn /^,-r,., « ,- kY1•^^xFgzESISffi^ MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 78 701 

### SANFORD, GERALD Tr. Ct, No. 2pfZ^CR-1W2 WR-82,668-01 On'this day, the^ongihaNapplicatiori^or writ.df itiandamus has been received and PITNEY BOWES
Ob-~~ *;:•% . i Abel Acosta, Clerk §ANFORD 

## C%NTY ADULT -TDC #523040 OM^L „,.>- »NI@\TX 78207*^

.A.VRS3B 7S2D7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         245,238
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  286,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    768,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,351,181
<PP&E>                                         833,957
<DEPRECIATION>                               (509,682)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,840,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          732,865
<BONDS>                                     17,722,095
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,167
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,617,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,840,393
<SALES>                                      1,695,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,695,471
<CGS>                                          972,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  972,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               508,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             787,129
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (573,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (573,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 66,159
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (639,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
Oral Employment Agreements with Directors and Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION ORAL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS 
 WITH DIRECTORS AND NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  
 Arrangements with Named Executive Officers 
  
 Certain named executive officers have oral employment arrangements with the Company as follows: 
  

								
	 Name

	  	 Title

	  	Base Salary

	  	Employment
Term


	 William S. McKiernan
	  	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer	  	$	300,000	  	At-will
				
	 Robert J. Ford
	  	Executive Vice President, Product Development and Chief Technology Officer	  	$	225,000	  	At-will
				
	 Steven D. Pellizzer
	  	Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer	  	$	200,000	  	At-will
				
	 Michael A. Walsh
	  	Vice President, Worldwide Sales	  	$	200,000	  	At-will

  
 In addition, such officers are
eligible to receive for each quarter in 2005 a cash bonus equal to 3% to 5% of such officer’s annual base salary if the Company exceeds certain corporate profit milestones for that quarter. 
  
 Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors 
  
 Each non-employee member of the Board of Directors of the Company is eligible to receive
compensation, for 2005, as follows: 
  

			
	 Annual retainer for each non-employee member of the Board
	  	$5,000 and an option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company
		
	 Annual retainer for serving as the lead outside director
	  	An option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company
		
	 Annual retainer for each non-employee member of Board Committee
	  	$1,000 per Board Committee and an option to purchase 2,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company
		
	 Annual retainer for serving as a non-employee Chair of a Board Committee
	  	$1,000 (in addition to the standard Board Committee retainer) and an option to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company (in lieu of the standard Board Committee
option)

  
 All options to non-employee directors
are discretionary grants pursuant to the Company’s 1999 Stock Option Plan.