alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.1

                       American International Group, Inc.
                        Summary of Director Compensation

The following non-employee director compensation arrangements will take effect
as of January 1, 2006:

1.  Annual cash retainer for all non-employee directors of $75,000, payable in
    four equal installments at the beginning of each quarter.  No attendance
    fees will be paid for Board meetings, including executive sessions.

2.  Additional cash retainer and meeting fees for non-employee members of
    standing committees as follows:

    - Annual retainer for the Chairman of the Audit Committee: $25,000

    - Annual retainer for other committee Chairmen: $15,000

    - Annual retainer for non-Chairmen committee members: $5,000 per committee

    - Meeting fees: $1,500 per meeting

3.  Additional cash retainer for the Chairman of the Board of $150,000, payable
    in four equal installments at the beginning of each quarter. As an ex
    officio member of all standing committees, the Chairman of the Board will
    not receive any committee annual retainers or meeting fees.

4.  Equity grants of 1,000 AIG shares annually. Annual grants will be made in
    four equal installments at the beginning of each quarter, but receipt will
    be deferred until retirement from the Board pursuant to the AIG Director
    Stock Plan.

5.  Option grants relating to 2,500 AIG shares annually. Annual grants will be
    made on the date of the Annual Meeting pursuant to the AIG Amended and
    Restated 1999 Stock Option Plan.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 20-0606 

I 

X LIIINE 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER I TOULOUSE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

MAR 0 8 2022 

Bovven Greenwood 

Clerk of Suprerne Coun 

. tr4te ryf IVIneNtan 

ORDER 

Counsel for Appellant Christopher I Toulouse filed a motion and brief asking to be 

allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that he has been unable to find any 

nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Toulouse responded to counsel's brief 

and objected to counsel's motion. 

The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), 

MCA, and Anders. We have considered the arguments raised by counsel and by Toulouse 

in his response. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could 

be raised in a direct appeal of Toulouse's conviction in this case. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

the appellant personally ‘1, 1_,

DATED this s"." ----day of March, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

03/08/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0606
,24f
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          27,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  510,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,386
<INVENTORY>                                    350,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               934,717
<PP&E>                                       1,816,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                 874,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,514,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          566,638
<BONDS>                                        549,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,438
<OTHER-SE>                                     469,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,514,154
<SALES>                                      3,407,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,407,911
<CGS>                                        2,471,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,471,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,212
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                300,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                   109,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            190,755
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,200)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   180,290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99(b)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection  with the Annual  Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Venerando  J.
Indelicato,  Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
          (2)  The information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.

September 30, 2002

                                       /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Venerando J. Indelicato
                                       Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



Page-Com GP, Inc.                                           Delaware      
                                                                          
BearCom LP, Inc.                                            Delaware      
                                                                          
BearCom Operating, L.P.                                     Texas         
                                                                          
Racomm, Inc.                                                Nevada        
                                                                          
Bear Communications, Inc.                                   California    
                                                                          
Cellular City, Inc.                                         Nevada        
                                                                          
Condor Holdings, Inc.                                       Delaware
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Ameriprint International Ltd.. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Kevin Moe, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; and

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

Dated this 27th day of July, 2005.



| | /s/ Kevin Moe                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Kevin Moe                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          6,080
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  46,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (2,123)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               51,544
<PP&E>                                         83,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                 51,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                213,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          63,544
<BONDS>                                       220,638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          32,962
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            1
<OTHER-SE>                                  (113,772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  213,799
<SALES>                                        63,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               63,091
<CGS>                                          48,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  48,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       17
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended June 30, 2013,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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; and

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




      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

      August 14, 2013


		E-3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6953

HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00812-HEH)

Submitted: December 17, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Paul Richardson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his convictions by 

way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may 

challenge his convictions in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a 

§ 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

Section 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: 

(1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established 

the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 

motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was 

convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law. In re Jones, 

226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Gomez, No. 3:19-cv-00812-HEH 

(E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED
(Letterhead of LeMaster & Daniels PLLC)


CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Metaline Mining  & Leasing Company 
Spokane, Washington




We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  of  our  report, dated March 27, 1999, on the
financial statements  of Metaline Mining  & Leasing Company  as of  December 31,
1998, and for the year then ended, in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended
December  31,  1998.



/s/ LeMaster & Daniels  PLLC



Spokane, Washington
March , 1999






(Letterhead of Robert Moe & Associates, P.S.)



CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Metaline Mining  & Leasing Company 
Spokane, Washington


We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  of  our  opinion, dated March 16, 1998 on the
financial  statements  of  Metaline Mining & Leasing Company for the  year ended
December  31,  1997  in  the  Form  10-KSB.


/s/ Robert Moe & Associates
Robert Moe & Associates, P.S.

Spokane, Washington
April 13, 1999



<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Lorie M. Guerrera, Chief Accounting Officer of Cordia Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period September 30, 2004 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report):

(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 Registrant.



By:/s/ Lorie M. Guerrera





Lorie M. Guerrera



Chief Accounting Officer



March 10, 2005









*

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 35 Combustible Furniture

Item 35 Combustible Furniture – Move combustible furniture away from house to reduce risk of home ignition from burning combustibles.

Combustibles moved

away from house

Combustibles moved

away from house

Burned lounge

chair cushion

Whicker chairs 

with cushions

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 35: Combustible Furniture 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YUC HENG DING,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-70263 Age n c y No. A095-876-740
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 9, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILER , ** B EA, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Yuc he ng Ding pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (B IA) orde r a ffirm ing the de c ision of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) that de n ie d him
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED APR 22 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion to c onside r his le ga l c ha lle nge unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252(a )(2)(D). B e c a use Ding a

pplie d for a sy lum

and withholding in 2002, the c re dibility sta nda rd spe c ifie d by

the REAL ID Ac t of 2005, 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii), wa s not a pplic a ble , se e Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2010). The re fore , the B IA e rre d by a pply ing the R EAL ID Ac t sta nda rd in re vie wing the IJ’ s finding tha

t Ding’ s te s tim ony

in support of his a

pplic a tion for a sy lum and withholding wa s not c re dible . “ [W ] he re the B IA a pplie s the wrong le ga l sta nda rd to a n a pplic ant’ s c la im , the a

ppropria te re lie f from

this c ourt is re m and for
re c o nside ra tion unde r the c orre c t sta nda rd, not inde

pe nde nt re v ie w of the
e vide nc e .” Orne las-C

hav e z v . Gonzale

z , 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th C i r. 2006). W e the re fore grant the pe tition a s to Ding’ s c l a im s for a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd re m and to theB IA to re c onside r those c la im s unde r the c orre c t sta nda rd and with re fe re nc e to “ a ll of the e vide nc e be fore it,” Antonio v . Garland , 58 F.4th 1067, 1077 (9th C ir. 2023) (c ita tion omitte d), inc luding thede c la ra tions subm itte d by

Ding’ s wife and c oworke r re ga rding Ding’ s arre st, de te ntion, a nd
re le a se . Ding c onc e de s tha

t he did not a

ppe a l the de nia l of his C AT re lie f c la im to the B IA, and doe s not a

rgue he is e ntitle d to re lie f. That c la im is the re fore

2forfe ite d, se e Ve lasque z-Gaspar v . Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2020), a nd
we de ny the pe tition for re vie wa s to C AT re lie f. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , and RE M A NDE D.

3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00821-CV

In re Texas Pension Review Board and Stephanie Leibe, in her

Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Pension Review Board

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

The petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for temporary relief 

are denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Filed: November 14, 2019
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 13 Gable Vent

Item 13 Gable Vent – Apply 1/8th inch fine metal mesh screen inside gable vents to prevent ember intrusion. 

No metal mesh

screen behind

vent cover

No metal mesh screen behind vent cover

Fine metal mesh screen behind 

vent cover (not visible)

Fine metal mesh

screen behind 

vent cover

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 13: Gable Vent 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3466

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Manuel De Jesus Perez-Echeverria, also known as Chuy

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

 ____________

 Submitted: April 12, 2022

Filed: April 25, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Perez-Echeverria appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence was unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are

reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion

standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives

significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment

in weighing appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the

Guidelines range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir.

2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly

inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-