alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Branden CALENDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10173

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2012.

Nicole Dana, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Branden Calender appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We review revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4)’s “plainly unreasonable” standard. *United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 496, 181 L.Ed.2d 345 (2011). This is a more deferential standard than the reasonableness standard that applies to sentences imposed upon conviction. *Id.*Under the plainly unreasonable standard, we first assess whether the district court committed procedural error and then consider “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Calender complains that the district court committed procedural error by improperly considering the factors of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in imposing his sentence because subsection (a)(2)(A) is not among the provisions of § 3553 that § 3583(e) directs courts to weigh in fashioning a revocation sentence. *See id.*at 844. However, he does not allege, and the record does not reflect, that the district court, in imposing his revocation sentence, made any specific reference to § 3553(a)(2)(A) or that the district court discussed any of the factors set forth in § 3553(a)(2)(A). Calender’s argument instead rests on a statement in the district court’s written judgment of revocation and sentence that the court had considered “all factors” set forth in § 3553(a).

Nevertheless, the district court, at sentencing, explained that the 24-month sentence “would appropriately address the factors the [c]ourt should consider in a revocation context.” The court’s references to the factors that “should” be considered indicate that the court limited its decision to the § 3553(a) factors enumerated in § 3583(e). The district court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing controls to the extent it conflicts with the written judgment. *See United States v. Martinez,*250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001). Calender’s argument fails to establish that his revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. *See Miller,*634 F.3d at 843. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# File information

# Retirement

# Health

# Medical care

# Life insurance

# Short term disability

# Long term disability

# Leave

# Other benefits
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5370

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado,

as the ‘‘Donald G. Brotzman Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5370 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in Boulder, Colorado,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald G.

5 Brotzman Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Donald G. Brotzman Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 19,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5370

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4985 Moorhead Avenue in

Boulder, Colorado, as the ‘‘Donald G. BrotzmanPost Office Building’’.
#### Young *et al. v.*The State.

Bleckley, C. J. — 1. It has been so repeatedly ruled that assignments’of error in admitting evidence cannot be considered when it does not appear what objection was made to the evidence at the time it was offered in the trial court, that the practice on this question ought to be considered as finally settled.

2. In charging the jury upon the law with reference to the possession of stolen property by one accused of the theft, the court should use the word “recent,” but the omission to do so is not-cause for a new trial in a particular case where it affirmatively appears that the possession in question was in fact a recent one.

3. Although the conviction was founded solely on circumstantial evidence, it is not cause for a new trial that the court, while instructing the j ury as to the law of reasonable doubt, omitted to state in the-same connection that the evidence must also exclude every other-reasonable hypothesis but that of the guilt of the accused, the court having subsequently charged as follows: “In connection with indirect or circumstantial evidence the court charges you that the rule of law is, that the facts established by the evidence must not only be consistent with the defendant’s guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.”

4. Under the facts of this case, and in view of the rulings in *Jones v. The State,*67 *Ga.*242, and *Green*v. *The State,*71 *Ga.*487, it is not-cause for a new trial that the court charged: “Circumstances satisfactorily proven which point to the guilt of the defendants, and which are irreconcilable with the hypothesis of their innocence,, and which require explanation from them and may be explained by them if they be innocent, but which are not so explained, are sufficient to satisfy the conscience of a juror and justify him before that forum for rendering a verdict according to their almost unerring indication.” See also *Everett*v. *The State,*62 *Ga.*65, text of opinion on page 72.

5. There was no error in refusing to give the following request to-charge: “Where two or more persons reside in a house, the fact of stolen goods being found in the house is not evidence of the guilt of any one of the persons residing in the same; the possession must be traced to one or more of them specialty.”

6. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in convicting *457the accused, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

October 15, 1894.

Indictment for cattle stealing. Before Judge Sweat. Camden superior court. March term, 1894.

George *W.*Owens, for plaintiff in error.

*W.*G. Brantley, solicitor-general, by Harrison &■ Peeples, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 571

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a shorter recovery 

period for the depreciation of certain restaurant buildings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. HERGER, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. 

MCHUGH, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, and Mr. WELDON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a shorter recovery period for the depreciation of certain 

restaurant buildings.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF 

4 RESTAURANT BUILDINGS. 

5 (a) 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph 

6 (E) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

7 1986 (relating to 15-year property) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at 
2

•HR 571 IH 

1 the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding 

2 at the end the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(iv) any section 1250 property which 

4 is a retail restaurant facility.’’

5 (b) RETAIL RESTAURANT FACILITY.—Subsection (e) 

6 of section 168 of such Code is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(6) RETAIL RESTAURANT FACILITY.—The 

9 term ‘retail restaurant facility’ means any building 

10 if more than 50 percent of the building’s square 

11 footage is devoted to preparation of, and seating for 

12 on-premises consumption of, prepared meals.’’

13 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

14 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting 

15 after the item relating to subparagraph (E)(iii) the fol16 lowing new item:

‘‘(E)(iv) ..................................................................................................... 20’’.

17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to retail restaurant buildings 

19 placed in service after the date of the enactment of this 

20 Act and to all improvements made after the date of enact21 ment.

Æ
Exhibit 10.29

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

NEENAH PAPER EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT to the NEENAH PAPER EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN (as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”) is made by Neenah Paper, Inc. (the “Company”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan, which is intended to qualify as an employee welfare benefit plan for severance benefits within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company now wishes to amend the Plan to ensure compliance with Code Section 409A;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective immediately, by adding the following to the end of Section 5.3:

 

“Notwithstanding any other provision in this Plan to the contrary, if a Participant is considered a ‘specified employee’ of the Company for purposes of Code Section 409A on the date of a Qualified Termination of Employment, any payment described in Section 5.1 that constitutes non-exempt ‘deferred compensation’ within the meaning of Code Section 409A that is otherwise due to the Participant as a result of such Participant’s ‘separation from service’ within the meaning of Code Section 409A during the six-month period immediately following such ‘separation from service’ shall be accumulated and paid to the Participant on the first day of the seventh month following such ‘separation from service’ (‘Delayed Payment Date’) to the extent necessary for the Participant to avoid adverse tax consequences or additional taxes under Code Section 409A, provided that if the Participant dies prior to the payment of such amounts, such amounts shall be paid to the personal representative of his estate on the first to occur of the Delayed Payment Date or 10 days following the date of Participant’s death.

 

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Plan to the contrary, if any payment described in Section 5.1 constitutes non-exempt ‘deferred compensation’ within the meaning of Code Section 409A, such payment, if due under the terms of the Plan, shall be paid on the sixtieth (60th) day following the Qualified Termination of Employment (which Qualified Termination of Employment, in the case of a Qualified Termination of Employment described in Section 2.20(B), shall occur at the date of the Change of Control).”

 

Except as specifically set forth above, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

 

1











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on the 17 day of December, 2008.

 

	
 
    	
NEENAH PAPER, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/Richard   Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Richard   Read
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Vice   President - Human Resources
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Date:
    	
December 17,   2008
    
					


 

2
Table 32. Multiple jobholders and multiple jobholding rates by sex and race, 1994–2009 

annual averages

(Numbers in thousands)

Multiple jobholders

Number

Percent of 

all multiple 

jobholders

1994........ 123,060 7,260 3,336 46.0 3,924 5.9 5.9 5.9

1995....... 124,900 7,693 3,554 46.2 4,139 6.2 6.2 6.1

1996........ 126,708 7,832 3,640 46.5 4,192 6.2 6.2 6.1

1997........ 129,558 7,955 3,718 46.7 4,237 6.1 6.2 6.1

1998........ 131,463 7,926 3,748 47.3 4,178 6.0 6.2 5.9

1999........ 133,488 7,802 3,698 47.4 4,104 5.8 6.0 5.7

2000........ 136,891 7,604 3,608 47.4 3,996 5.6 5.7 5.5

2001........ 136,933 7,357 3,523 47.9 3,834 5.4 5.5 5.2

2002........ 136,485 7,291 3,557 48.8 3,734 5.3 5.6 5.1

2003........ 137,736 7,315 3,599 49.2 3,716 5.3 5.6 5.1

2004........ 139,252 7,473 3,638 48.7 3,835 5.4 5.6 5.1

2005.........141,730 7,546 3,691 48.9 3,855 5.3 5.6 5.1

2006.........144,427 7,576 3,753 49.5 3,822 5.2 5.6 4.9

2007.........146,047 7,655 3,822 49.9 3,833 5.2 5.6 4.9

2008.........145,362 7,620 3,783 49.6 3,837 5.2 5.6 5.0

2009.........139,877 7,271 3,741 51.5 3,530 5.2 5.6 4.8

Year Total 

employed

Multiple jobholding rate1

Total

Women

Men Total Women Men

1 Multiple jobholders as a percent of all employed people in specified group.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

87
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 4-3. Selected labor force characteristics of Asians

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

In 2006, Asians comprised:

3 percent of those

working part time for

economic reasons

3 percent of the

unemployed

4 percent of the

labor force

4 percent of the

long-term unemployed

5 percent of 

marginally attached

workers

Chart 4-3. Selected labor force characteristics of Asians

• Asians made up about 4 percent of the labor force in 2006.

• They accounted for similar proportions of the unemployed and other 

categories of persons experiencing certain types of labor market difficulties.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                          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 Quarterly Report of First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, dated the
date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, J. William Plummer, the
President and the Chief Executive 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 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.


Date:  May 13, 2003           By: /s/ J. William Plummer
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                      J. William Plummer
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to First Federal Bancorp, Inc., and will be retained by First
Federal Bancorp, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Ex. 10.14.1 Amendment to Special Severance Plan


Exhibit 10.14.1




                                            
AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL SEVERANCE PLAN
The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation Special Severance Plan (the “ASSP”) is hereby amended as set forth below:
(i)    The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 2.1(b):
“Payments will begin on the first scheduled payroll date following the fifty-third (53rd) day following the employee's separation date, provided that the employee has executed and not revoked a release of claims.” 
(ii)    Section 2.4 of the ASSP is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“2.4  No Employee shall be eligible to receive Severance Benefits under Section 2.1 or 2.2 above, unless, within forty-five (45) days following such Employee's Severance Date, he or she first executes a Release (substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto) in favor of the Company and others set forth on said Exhibit A, relating to all claims or liabilities of any kind relating to his or her employment with the Company or a subsidiary thereof and the termination of the Employee's employment.  When an employee executes a release in accordance with the requirements of the prior sentence, and does not revoke it within seven (7) days, the release will become effective on the eighth (8th) day following the employee's execution of such release.”
Except as set forth above, the ASSP is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.

http://at-share.anntaylor.com/sites/atfile/Form 10K/FY2012/Exhibit Index/Amendment to Special Severance Plan.doc
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

ALBA I. ACEVEDO and JOSEPH

ACEVEDO,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and

XYZ CORPORATION,

 Defendants.

Civil No. 11-3830 (JBS/AMD)

ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION TO

PLACE CASE INTO THE ARBITRATION PROGRAM

 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court during the

initial scheduling conference on September 20, 2011; and the Court

noting the following appearances: John A. Klamo, Esquire,

appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs; and John V. Mallon, Esquire,

appearing on behalf of the defendant American Airlines, Inc.; and

all counsel consenting to placing this matter into the arbitration

program; and for good cause shown:

 IT IS on this 20th day of September 2011, hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned matter shall be, and

hereby is, placed into the arbitration program.

s/ Ann Marie Donio 

 ANN MARIE DONIO

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle

 James Quinlan, Arbitration Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-03830-JBS-AMD Document 7 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 30
Exhibit 10.18






Exhibit 10.18
SUMMARY OF REGISTRANT'S COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Under the Akamai Technologies, Inc. director compensation plan, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and non-employee directors are entitled to annual compensation of $250,000, of which $50,000 is paid in cash and $200,000 is paid in deferred stock units (“DSUs”) representing the right to receive shares of Akamai common stock. This compensation is generally paid or, in the case of DSUs, issued, on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders, and the number of DSUs issued is based on the fair market value of one share of Akamai common stock on that date. For so long as the person remains a director, DSUs will vest over a two-year period as follows: fifty percent on the first anniversary of the grant date with the remainder vesting in equal quarterly installments over the following 12 months. If a director has completed one year of service on the Board, vesting of 100% of the DSUs held by such director will accelerate at the time of his or her departure from the Board. 
In addition, the Chairman of the Board and Lead Director are entitled to $40,000 of additional annual compensation, of which $20,000 is paid in cash and $20,000 is paid in DSUs. Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee are entitled to $25,000 in additional compensation, of which $5,000 is paid in cash and $20,000 is paid in DSUs. The Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is entitled to $10,000 of additional compensation, of which $5,000 is paid in cash and $5,000 is paid in DSUs. Each non-employee director is eligible to receive stock options to purchase shares of Akamai  common stock with a fair value at the time of grant of $400,000 when he or she joins the Board of Directors. Such stock options vest over a four-year period, with 25% vesting on the first anniversary of the date of grant and the remainder vesting in equal quarterly installments of 6.25%. We also reimburse directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors. 
In connection with his election as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors in January 2013, Mr. Sagan was voted the following compensation: annual compensation of $340,000, which consists of $120,000 in cash and DSUs having an initial value of $220,000, which are expected to be issued in May 2013 (or such other time that equity is granted to other members of the Board of Directors) and which will vest over two years (50% on the first anniversary of the date of grant and then in equal quarterly installments of 12.5% each quarter thereafter).
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5371 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5371

                    For the relief of David Adekoya.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2004

Mr. Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of David Adekoya.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              DAVID ADEKOYA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, David Adekoya may not be removed from 
the United States, or denied admission to the United States, by reason 
of any act of his that is a ground for removal or denial of admission 
and is reflected in the records of the Department of Homeland Security, 
or the Visa Office of the Department of State, on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall rescind any outstanding order of removal, or 
any finding of inadmissibility or deportability, that has been entered 
against David Adekoya by reason of any act described in subsection (a).
    (c) Establishment of Good Moral Character.--Notwithstanding section 
101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any act described in 
subsection (a) may not be considered in determining whether David 
Adekoya is, or during any period has been, a person of good moral 
character for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
0

3

6

9

12

15

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

0

3

6

9

12

15

Chart 1-16. Increases in employer costs for wages and 

salaries matched gains in benefit costs in 2006

Percent change from previous year

Benefits

Wages and salaries

NOTE: The Employment Cost Index components are for private-sector workers. Beginning in 2001, data reflect NAICS-based 

classification of industries. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-16. Increases in employer costs for wages and 

salaries matched gains in benefit costs in 2006

• In the private sector, benefit costs rose 3.1 percent for the year ending 

December 2006, comparable to an increase of 3.2 percent for wages and 

salaries. Increases in employer costs for benefits had outpaced gains in wages 

from 2000-2005.

• The cost of benefits typically has risen at a faster pace than wages, although, 

for a period in the late-1990s, growth in the cost of benefits fell below that of 

wages.