alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 95-8111

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:91-CV-1107-MHS J. JEROME HARRIS, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellee-Cross-Appellant,

versus BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA; A School District of the State of Georgia, Defendant-Counter-Claimant, JOSEPH G. MARTIN, JR., Individually and in his Official Capacity as President of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; MARY ANNE BELLINGER, REV., Individually and in her Official Capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; JOHN F. ELGER, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; CAROLYN D. YANCEY, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; D.F. GLOVER, Dr., Individually and in his Official Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; ROBERT WAYMER, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; MIDGE SWEET, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; INA EVANS, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta; PRESTON W. WILLIAMS, Dr., Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta, Defendants-Coun ter-ClaimantsAppellants-Cross-Appellees.

________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (April 16, 1996)1 Honorable Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 2 Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and MILLS 1 District Judge.

INTERIM ORDER: The panel heard oral argument in this case on April 11, 1996. After hearing oral argument, the panel is of the opinion that this case can be and should be settled. The panel hereby refers this appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Conference Attorney for settlement discussions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1. The parties and their counsel are directed to contact this court's Appellate Conference Office not later than fifteen days from receipt of this order to explore a resolution of their differences. Before settlement discussions, counsel for the parties must consult with their clients and obtain as much authority as feasible to settle the appeal. Counsel and the parties are expected to discuss all issues in good faith. The conference attorney shall issue an order as contemplated by Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1(d) or issue a report to the panel not later than June 14, 1996.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 04-cr-292-01-PB

Stephen Mainero

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

finalize plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from October 4, 2005 to December 6,

2005. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:04-cr-00202-PB Document 19 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on November 

22, 2005 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

September 21, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Mark Howard, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00202-PB Document 19 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1110

To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all States including

States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. OSBORNE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KING,

Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. GOODE, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. SHAYS, Mr.

BLUMENAUER, Mr. WALSH, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. WELDON of

Florida, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FRANK, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all

States including States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

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 ‘‘Student Athlete Pro5 tection Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

7 Section 3704 of title 28, United States Code, is

8 amended—
2

•HR 1110 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Section’’ and

2 inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (c), sec3 tion’’; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(c)(1) Section 3702 shall apply to a lottery, sweep6 stakes or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme

7 based, directly or indirectly, on—

8 ‘‘(A)(i) one or more competitive games in which

9 high school or college athletes participate; or

10 ‘‘(ii) one or more performances of high school

11 or college athletes in competitive games; or

12 ‘‘(B) one or more competitive games at the

13 Summer or Winter Olympics.

14 ‘‘(2) In this section—

15 ‘‘(A) the term ‘high school’ has the meaning

16 given the term ‘secondary school’ in section 14102

17 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

18 1965; and

19 ‘‘(B) the term ‘college’ has the meaning given

20 the term ‘institution of higher education’ in section

21 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.’’.
3

•HR 1110 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect

3 on the date that is 30 days after the date of enactment

4 of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

            SUMMARY OF THE COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF
                              ENERGY PARTNERS, LTD.

         Set forth below is a summary of the compensation provided to directors
who are not officers or employees of the company ("Non-Employee Directors").
Directors who are also officers or employees of the Company do not receive any
compensation for duties performed as Directors.

Retainers and Meeting Fees:

o    Board Retainer: Each Non-Employee Director receives an annual retainer of
     $27,500 and meeting fees of $1,000 for each meeting of the Board of
     Directors or any Committee of the Board of Directors.

o    Committee Retainers: The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual
     retainer of $15,000 and the Chairman of each other Committee of the Board
     of Directors receives an annual retainer of $10,000. Each member of the
     Audit Committee (other than the Chairman) receives an annual retainer of
     $5,000.

o    Form of Payment: Retainer fees are paid in shares of Common Stock (valued
     at fair market value); provided, however, that a director may elect to
     receive up to 50% of such retainer fees in cash. Meeting fees are paid in
     cash.

o    Deferral Election: Directors may defer all or a portion of their retainer
     and meeting fees, at the election of each director.

Reimbursement of Expenses: Directors are reimbursed for their reasonable
expenses in connection with attending Board of Director meetings and other
Company events.

Stock Option Grants: The Company's 2000 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
Directors provides for automatic grants of stock options to members of the Board
of Directors who are not employees of the Company or any subsidiary. An initial
grant of a stock option to purchase 4,000 shares of our Common Stock was made to
each non-employee director upon consummation of our initial public offering. An
initial grant of a stock option to purchase 2,000 shares will also be made to
each person who becomes a non-employee director after the effective date upon
his or her initial election or appointment. After the initial grant, each
non-employee director will receive an additional grant of a stock option to
purchase 4,000 shares of our Common Stock immediately following each annual
meeting. All stock options granted under the plan will have a per share exercise
price equal to the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the date of
grant (as determined by the committee appointed to administer the plan), will be
fully vested and immediately exercisable and will expire on the earlier of (i)
ten years from the date of grant or (ii) 36 months after the optionee ceases to
be a director for any reason. The total number of shares of our Common Stock
that may be issued under the plan is 250,000, subject to adjustment in the case
of certain corporate transactions and events.
<Page>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.13


                               BOARD COMPENSATION


o    annual cash retainer of $50,000
o    Lead Independent Director fee - $20,000 (inclusive of any and all committee
     fees)
o    Audit Committee Chair fee - $15,000
o    Compensation Committee chair fee - $10,000
o    $1,000 meeting fee for each committee meeting attended by a director (and
     $500 for each telephonic committee meeting attended, payable at the
     discretion of the committee chair)
o    option grant of 12,000 non-qualified stock options (one year vesting)
Case 1:05-cv-00234-SM Document 5 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 1

Picard v. HIllsborough County Department of Corrections et al Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 4 A2 27 8 . TYLER D. ALLEN v . J EFFREY J . ALLEN.

Th e ap p eal i n th i s cas e was d o ck et ed o n Au g u st 1 1

, 2 0 1 4

. Ap p el l an t ’ s b ri ef

an d en u m erat i o n o f erro rs were d u e o n Sep t em b er 1 , 2 0 1 4

. On Sep t em

ber 2 , 2 0 1 4,

t h i s Co u rt g ran t ed Ap p el l an t an ex t en s i o n u nt i l Oct o b er 1

, 2 0 1 4 t o fi l e hi s b ri ef an d

e n u m e r a t i o n o f erro rs

. On Oct o b er 7

, 2 0 1 4, t h is Co u rt g ran t ed Ap p el l an t an o t h e r

ex t en s i o n u n t i l Oct o b er 2 0

, 2 0 1 4

. On Oct o ber 8

, 2 0 1 4

, t hi s Co u rt g ran t ed Ap p el l an t ’ s

M o t i on To Su p p l em en t Th e Reco rd an d o rd ered t h e Cl erk of t h e Su peri o r Co u rt o f

Fu l t o n Co u n t y t o pro vi d e t h e s up p l em en t al reco rd b y Oct o ber 1 8

, 2 01 4

. On Oct o b er

2 9 , t h e Cl erk o f t h i s Co u rt was ad v i s ed b y a rep res en t at iv e o f t h e Su p eri or Co u rt o f

Fu l t o n Co u n t y t h at Ap p el lan t refu s ed t o p ay fo r t he s u pp l em en t al reco rd as req u i red

.

As o f th e d at e o f t h i s Ord er, Ap p el l an t has n o t fi l ed h i s b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n

o f erro rs . Acco rd i ng ly , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y d is m i s s ed as ab an d o ned . See Co u rt o f

A p p eal s Ru le 23 (a); R ees e v. S t a t e , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p. 7 73 (4 5 6 SE2 d 2 7 1 ) ( 1 9 9 5 )

.
Ap p el l an t ’ s M o t i o n T o Req u es t Oral Arg u m en t

, Ap p el l an t’ s Seco nd M o t i o n

To Su p pl em en t Th e Ap p el lat e Reco rd

, an d Ap p el l an t ’ s (t h i rd ) M o t i on Fo r Ex t en s i o n

Of Ti m e To Fi l e Th e I n i t i al Bri ef An d En u m erat i o n Of E rro rs are DENIED AS

M OOT. January 08, 2015Ap p el l ee’ s Seco n d M o t i on To Di s m i s s Ap p eal An d Res p o n s e To Ap p el l an t ’ s

Th i rd M o t i o n Fo r Ex t en s i o n i s DENIED AS M OOT.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 01/08/2015
# EXHIBIT 12.1

# ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

# (Dollar
amounts in thousands)

(Unaudited)

`Three Months Ended March 31,                     Twelve Months Ended December 31,         
                                   2002          2001          2001        2000         1999        1998       19971    

Earnings from operations.... $       66,433 $       37,055 $    175,397 $   176,466 $   169,339 $   134,571 $     24,686
Add:
   Interest expense.........         48,574         34,247      141,907     145,173     121,494      83,350       61,153
Earnings as adjusted........ $      115,007 $       71,302 $    317,304 $   321,639 $   290,833 $   217,921 $     85,839
                             ============== ============== ============ =========== =========== =========== ============

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense......... $       48,574 $       34,247 $    141,907 $   145,173 $   121,494 $    83,350 $     61,153
   Capitalized interest.....          5,639          5,318       20,294      24,317      31,912      29,942       17,606
     Total fixed charges.... $       54,213 $       39,565 $    162,201 $   169,490 $   153,406 $   113,292 $     78,759
                             ============== ============== ============ =========== =========== =========== ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges.....................            2.1            1.8          2.0         1.9         1.9         1.9          1.1
                             ============== ============== ============ =========== =========== =========== ============`

| | (1) | Earnings from  operations for 1997 includes a one-time,  non-cash  charge of $71.7 million  associated with
              costs incurred in acquiring  Archstone-Smith's  REIT and property  management  companies from Security
              Capital.  Excluding  the charge,  the ratio of earnings to fixed  charges for the year ended  December
              31, 1997 would be 2.0.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21245]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; 
Notice of Meeting

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

    Name: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and 
Education (9487).
    Dates: October 15, 2008, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. and October 16, 2008, 9 
a.m.-1 p.m.
    Place: Stafford I, Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Alan Tessier, National Science Foundation, Suite 
635, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-
7198.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations, and 
oversight concerning support for environmental research and 
education.

Agenda

October 15

    Introduction of New Members.
    Update on recent NSF environmental activities.
    Presentation by Dr. Simon Levin, Princeton University.
    Discussion with Dr. Jeannette Wing, Assistant Director CISE.
    Discussion of the Committee's draft ``Green Report.''

October 16

    Update on Engineering Directorate programs in sustainability.
    Discussion of Future AC/ERE activities.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21245 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
H. J. Res. 69

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

107–44 is further amended by striking the date specified in section

107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘October 31, 2001’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-215-PB

Christopher Stallings, et. al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 2, 2006 trial in

the above case, citing the need for additional time to complete

discovery and prepare a defense. The government does not object

to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to September 6, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the 

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 32 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 20, 2006 final pretrial is continued to August 30,

2006 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 19, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA

Paul Pappas, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 32 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
#### BURCHIK v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.

No. 5484.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1937.

*485Fink & Fink, of Monroe, for appellant.

Thompson & Thompson, of Monroe, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

The appeal in this case is from a judgment sustaining an exception of no cause of action filed by defendant.

In his petition, plaintiff alleges that he received injuries while riding on a freight train owned and negligently operated by defendant company, and prays damages therefor.

• It is obvious that appellant has abandoned the appeal, for he has made no appearance in its behalf, either through oral argument or brief. In a situation of this kind, the judgment appealed from will not be disturbed. Calhoun v. Hodges (La. App.) 174 So. 209, and cases therein cited.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              24
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9174
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               14
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9145
<OTHER-SE>                                          15
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9174
<SALES>                                            458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   458
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    47
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 95 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 95

 Designating an official flag of the Medal of Honor and providing for 
  presentation of that flag to each recipient of that Medal of Honor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2002

    Mr. Latham introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Designating an official flag of the Medal of Honor and providing for 
  presentation of that flag to each recipient of that Medal of Honor.

Whereas the Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an 
        enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the 
        Armed Forces of the United States;
Whereas the Medal of Honor was established by Congress during the Civil War to 
        recognize soldiers who had distinguished themselves by gallantry in 
        action;
Whereas the Medal of Honor was conceived by Senator James Grimes of the State of 
        Iowa in 1861; and
Whereas the Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest military honor, awarded for 
        acts of personal bravery or self-sacrifice above and beyond the call of 
        duty: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MEDAL OF HONOR FLAG.

    The flag designed in 2002 by a resident of Jefferson, Iowa, and 
intended to be used to honor recipients of the Medal of Honor is hereby 
recognized and designated as the Medal of Honor Flag.

SEC. 2. PRESENTATION OF FLAG TO MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS.

    (a) Presentation.--The President shall provide for the presentation 
of the Medal of Honor Flag to each recipient of the Medal of Honor.
    (b) Future Recipients.--With respect to any presentation of the 
Medal of Honor made after the date of the enactment of this resolution, 
the presentation of the flag pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made 
at the same time as the presentation of the medal.
    (c) Prior Recipients.--With respect to any living recipient of the 
Medal of Honor, presentation of the flag pursuant to subsection (a) 
shall be made as expeditiously as possible after the date of the 
enactment of this resolution in such manner as may be provided by the 
Secretary of Defense.
                                 <all>
```