alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.24




NON-MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS




Effective January 1, 2008, each of
the directors who is not an employee of Pepco Holdings, Inc. ("PHI" or the
"Company") or any of its subsidiaries (a "non-management director") is paid an
annual retainer of $85,000, plus a fee of $2,000 for each Board and Committee
meeting attended.  Each non-management director who chairs the
Compensation/Human Resources, Corporate Governance/Nominating, Executive or
Finance Committee is paid an additional annual retainer of
$5,000.  The non-management director who chairs the Audit Committee is
paid an additional annual retainer of $7,500.  The Lead Director is
paid an additional annual retainer of $15,000.  Annual retainers and
Committee Chairman/Lead Director annual retainers are paid in equal quarterly
installments on the first day of each quarter.




The Company also provides directors
with travel accident insurance for Company-related travel, directors’ and
officers’ liability insurance coverage and reimburses directors for travel,
hotel and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with their
performance of their duties as directors.  The Company also provides
the directors with free parking in the Company's headquarters building other
than in connection with their performance of their duties as
directors.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KALA CORDELL,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL STAINS,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 111 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
## **Geographic Area Coordination Center (2024)**

**Checklist #8**

**For the National Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**ADMINISTRATIVE**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**AIRCRAFT AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**PREDICTIVE SERVICES AND INTELLIGENCE**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

**FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT**

**QUALIFICATONS AND TRAINING**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

****

**PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) – FOR PERSONNEL WITH FIRELINE QUALIFICATIONS ONLY**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

Geographic Area Coordination Center	12	Revised April 2024

# image1.png
· The 2013 changes to part 518 of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) regulations (Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming) tailored the self-regulating criteria to a tribe’s regulation of class II gaming activity and more clearly defined and streamlined the process by which a self-regulation petition is reviewed and a final determination is made by the NIGC. 

· This Tribal Readiness Checklist is intended to assist tribes in determining whether they are ready to submit a petition for self-regulation. The checklist includes various criteria that will be used to evaluate a tribe’s petition. This “self-assessment” checklist provides tribes with the basic actions that they should take to meet the qualifications to be eligible for a self-regulation certification and what types of documentation should be available for review to support the assessment. 

· Responses to the readiness checklist can be provided by tribal representatives, tribal regulatory body (TRB) personnel, and in some cases, even the gaming operations. A “No” response will not always disqualify a petition but the tribe should evaluate all responses fully and provide additional information at the end of the checklist to further describe its unique circumstances. After evaluating the readiness checklist, tribes that still wish to submit a petition for self-regulation should continue reviewing the additional checklists created to assist the NIGC in the petition process. The following part 518 checklists can be found on the NIGC website: (i) Eligibility Checklist; (ii) Submission Checklist; and (iii) Criteria Measurement Checklist.

· In order to further assist tribes in their petition for self-regulation certification, it is requested that the completed Tribal Readiness Checklist be submitted to the NIGC’s Office of Self-Regulation (OSR) for review so that OSR can provide feedback and comments to the tribe and to answer any questions that may arise. Additionally, the tribe should designate an agent to serve as point of contact to discuss the responses to the readiness checklist and the entire self-regulation process.

1 of 4

Page 4 of 4
#### In the Matter of Peter J. Galasso (Admitted as Peter John Galasso), an Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Respondent.

Submitted April 2, 2012;

decided May 1, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for a stay granted.
Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52125)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Deferred
Compensation  and Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee  Directors,  in the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  2-95022)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc.  Amended Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees,  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-32612)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Employee
Savings  Plan,  in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-26101)
pertaining  to  the  Ashland  Inc.   Long-Term   Incentive   Plan,  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.  33-55922)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc. 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-49907) pertaining to the Ashland Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-62901)  pertaining to
the Ashland Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.  333-33617)  pertaining  to the  Ashland  Inc.  1997  Stock
Incentive  Plan, in the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-78675)
pertaining  to the  registration  of 68,925  shares of Ashland Inc.  Common
Stock, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-36842) pertaining to
the  registration of 96,600 shares of Ashland Inc. Common Stock, and in the
Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-70651) pertaining to the offering
of $600,000,000 of Debt  Securities,  Preferred Stock,  Depository  Shares,
Common Stock and/or  Warrants of Ashland Inc., of our report dated November
1, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule
of Ashland  Inc.  and  consolidated  subsidiaries  included  in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2000.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
November 27, 2000
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30624 Summary Calendar

DELTA T. MORVANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana

(No. 94-CV-1321)

January 24, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Delta Morvant appeals from the district court's grant of

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. She asserts the

Commissioner's determination of her eligibility for widow's

benefits based on a birthdate of February 28, 1933 was erroneous,

and instead argues that her altered birth certificate and baptismal

certificate require a determination that February 29, 1932, was her

actual date of birth.2

We have reviewed the record, the findings of the

administrative law judge, and the Report and Recommendation of the

United States magistrate judge, which was adopted by the district

court after a de novo review of the record, and find no reversible

error. As the magistrate judge held, and the district court

approved, substantial evidence supports t he decision of the

Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11752 and #11753]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION: 

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/03/2009 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/27/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/14/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/15/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West Virginia, dated 05/15/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Mcdowell, Mercer, Raleigh.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13030 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 4, 2009, 8 a.m. to November 4, 2009, 5 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 2, 2009, 74 FR 50975-50977.                

The meeting will be held November 5, 2009. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 15, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-25413 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
December 23. 2013 

Alan R. Fedman, Esq. 

Dentons US LLP 

1301 K Street NW, Suite 600, East Tower 

Washington, DC 20005-3364 

Re: Review of financing documents for Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 

Indians 

Dear Mr. Fedman: 

This ietter responds to your request, on behalf of the Shingle Springs Band of 

Miwok Indians ("Tribe"), that the NationaJ Indian Gaming Commission's ("NJGC's") 

Office of General Counsel review a Securities Account Control-Consent Agreement ("the 

Agreement") between the Shingle Springs Tribal Gaming Authority, d/b/a Red Hawk 

Casino, an unincorporated instrumentality of the Tribe and WeUsfargo Bank ("Bank"). 

SpecificalJy, you have asked for my opinion whether the Agreement is a management 

contracts requiring the NIGC Chairman's approval under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act ("IGRA"). You also asked for my opinion whether the Agreement violate IGRA's 

requirement that a tribe have the sole proprietary i_nterest in its gaming operation. 

This opinion is Limited to the Agreement and cannot be relied upon to apply to, or 

include, any other agreements even if referenced in the Agreement 

The Agreement submitted by the Tribe contain terms similar to other agreements 

the Office of General Counsel has already reviewed and analyzed. See 

www.nigc.gov/Reading_ Room/Management_ Review _Letters.aspx. Applying the same 

analysis here, it is my opinion that the Agreement submitted by the Tribe is not a 

management contracts and does not require the approval of the Chairman. It is also my 

opinion that it does noi: violate IGRA's sole proprietary interest requirement. 

It is my unders··:anding that the draft is represented to be in substantially final 

form, if the Agreement changes in any material way prior to execution or is inconsistent 

with assumptions made herein, this opinion shall not apply. 

I anticipate tha; this letter will be the subject of Freedom of Information Act 

("FO!A") requests. Since we believe that some of the information in this letter may fall 

\I •' I 111 I '" 
Alan R. Fedman, Esq. 

Re: Review of financing documents for Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians 

December 23, 2013 

Page 2of2 

within FOIA exemption 4{c), which applies to confidential and proprietary information 

the release of which could cause substantial hann, I ask that you provide me with your 

views regarding release within ten days. 

If you have any questions. please contact NIGC Senior Attorney John R. Hay at 

(202) 632-7003. 

Eric Shepard 

Acting General Counsel
Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-52125)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Deferred
Compensation  and Stock Incentive Plan for Non-Employee  Directors,  in the
Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  2-95022)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc.  Amended Stock Incentive Plan for Key Employees,  in the  Registration
Statement  (Form S-8 No. 33-7501)  pertaining to the Ashland Inc.  Employee
Savings  Plan,  in the  Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-26101)
pertaining  to  the  Ashland  Inc.   Long-Term   Incentive   Plan,  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.  33-55922)  pertaining to the Ashland
Inc. 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-49907) pertaining to the Ashland Inc. Leveraged Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, in the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-62901)  pertaining to
the Ashland Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8  No.  333-33617)  pertaining  to the  Ashland  Inc.  1997  Stock
Incentive Plan, in the  Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No.  33-57011) as
amended  by  Post-Effective   Amendment  No.  2,  pertaining  to  the  U.S.
$200,000,000  Ashland  Inc.  Medium-Term  Notes,  Series H, and the related
Prospectus,  of our report  dated  November  4, 1998,  with  respect to the
consolidated   financial  statements  and  schedule  of  Ashland  Inc.  and
consolidated  subsidiaries  included in this Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended September 30, 1998.


                                                Ernst & Young LLP


November 24, 1998
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Taylor Renae HUEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6147.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

*384Taylor Renae Huey, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

PER CURIAM:

Taylor Renae Huey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Huey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
February 24, 2016

VIA E-MAIL ONLY

vannice_doulou@nigc.gov

National Indian Gaming Commission

Attn: Vannice Doulou

c/o Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, NW

Mail Stop # 1621

Washington, DC 20240

Re: Categorical Exemption for Management Contracts

Dear Ms. Doulou:

On behalf of the Elk Valley Rancheria, California, a federally recognized Indian tribe 

(the “Tribe”), I write to comment on the National Indian Gaming Commission’s proposal to 

implement a categorical exclusion (“CATEX”) under the National Environmental Policy Act

(“NEPA”). In short, the Tribe supports the use of such a CATEX.

The interaction between the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and NEPA has been the 

subject of much discussion. The NIGC has historically required compliance with NEPA when 

tribes enter into a management contract for gaming when construction is involved. Such a 

position results in significant delay, provides opportunity to oppose simple management changes 

that benefit tribes, and carries a significant cost.

The NIGC should be excused from NEPA compliance due to the inability to complete 

NEPA review within the time restrictions for management contact approval under the IGRA. 

Further, simple entry into a management agreement for gaming generally does not trigger any 

interest of the NIGC other than enforcement of the minimum requirements of the IGRA. No

major federal action is involved in the Indian gaming management contract process; therefore,

NEPA compliance should not be required.

If the NIGC insists on that there is no statutory conflict and that major federal action is involved

in management contract approvals, it can create a single programmatic EIS based on past

experience that would support a categorical exclusion for tribal projects. Such an approach,
Vannice Doulou

February 24, 2016

Page 2

called “tiering” is allowable by federal regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 1500.20, and would save

substantial time and money.

Based upon the above, the Tribe requests that the NIGC implement a CATEX for management

contract review under NEPA.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Bradley G. Bledsoe Downes

General Counsel

cc: Elk Valley Tribal Council
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN -C.yucW**  ***r(arrr.mtRu**

Dear h’
.



### 01bar, refueett 

### *,o a6ontiubt

no pareimozS*e

Beased UltilBtatutea

**ate** 

### for thep3nmhase OSmater-

, eqLLtpmont

adlmlstenanoe

sor BS&+,. 

### exoeptas ,MwoSnaSter pz' tw aball Be 

### upon~t~tW& ale 

### aaitnnlt

.to Be expded is,rfir axoBB0 or the 

### sumof +6,0OO,OotEepurcWee aballbeasde upon eealwloonpetitlve biaorectelted

by the **Ilxulqger aster**  **ten days**  **eaY8rtLeement Till**  **some** paper 

### or papereof g.3nw~,M.rcmlotioPinthie Btate. TEere~

the tummnt.

of tEeparoEw4e

it3 lese than $6,000,0o~.tEa mxeger&all, before lettimgany oontrept fob swh parohDee, ask

### the

for the msteriaJ5 sndinstallation sf asamiing plsntat the BtateJarmindi8strle5. The 

### 6y5t0m,~ no tlouBt,aoted %$ guru-oe of Aytisls 6lW1, abwe quoted, and the Board

r rhaps dsolinsd to approve the sontraat 

### Beoause of Ar 1015 680 of the statutes.

The langmge~ot A.IWole 0188m, *all toMroot* 

### for the purchase of ad4rlal5, sup &es, eqaipmmt 55d suste

## name forthe4

Prison SystenQ p' e Braod enootgbto %~5&uae the present;oontraot. 

### mhel~ngaageofdrtidee~4, %3.m supplies 

### to inoluda* * e ard all othsr.tEings re@md By the iliffe~rent department5 or bmtitutions, sxsspt sb*iotly pwishable goods,* is also broad snsugb to ower the present eontraot. fhwe Is, therefore, an olmious ooafliot, and 0110 OF t,hsother OS the statutes must fall. The rule in sued a 0888 IS that ths'last Ast 'rep3515 

### or supereecles the 

### prior Aot in respect to t&e OOafliOt..

Eonorable 

### 460,,

a. shfwgard- Ewe. 3

1.

i Article 6lflSnwas enacted in IQzr. &tic18 634

was smenlefl%q 1989 by H. B. 149 (ati C. 8. 41st Leg..p. aoj C@;l+ ,‘Lbere is no 5xprees repealSng clause in H. Bi Ho. $4*. mere is alwsgs an inrpl+ation of repeal, Jwweyer, where,,. as here, the prtieions of'the lzm statutes relste".to~the asme subjeot-m&t&r, and sre,l;nsuch conflict 85 that both oalmot stsud at the ssme time. Furthermore, the.emergemy olauee of H. B. No. 149 la '$uite. eignifioant. ~Thtat~clause ier

*The neoeseity for 0onformIng and extending the e1x5roiee of the rosponsibil+ties to **be** aee@ed by the Board Of Control to all institutions of the St&e gorermo3nt, creates ane+frgemoy and an ikperatire ,plbliO.netes~ sk*y that ,the oonstitutional rule~requjr%ng that.biil&be reed on three 

### meteral dsye be ~usp51#%3d, an&the rule $5 hereby suep5n&&, andth%e A& shall t5ke SffeOt 8ndb5~i3l

80:.&t, you are adylsed that the.oonf+raotin question should have been let by th0 @o&d-of Contro2 rather than by the FrzLson System, Artiole 634 being the llaast Aot, ,andyou should not pass the aooouut for psy-

. Very bLly y0urs ATTORNEX

O&aR Assistant