alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX 10.1 Summary Sheet for Terms of Employment for Named Executive Officers for 2013






EXHIBIT 10.1




Summary Sheet: Terms of Employment for Named Executive Officers for 2013


Employment Status


Pursuant to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, the employees of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (the "Bank"), including the Bank's chief executive officer, the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer and other current named executive officers as of December 31, 2012 (Dean Schultz, Lisa B. MacMillen, Kenneth C. Miller, Lawrence H. Parks, Suzanne Titus-Johnson and David H. Martens) (the “named executive officers”), are “at will” employees. The named executive officers may resign at any time and the Bank may terminate their employment at any time for any reason or no reason, with or without cause and with or without notice. 


Each of the named executive officers receives a base salary and is eligible to participate in the Bank's executive incentive compensation plans and comprehensive benefit programs, including both qualified and nonqualified retirement benefit plans. Subject to review by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, base salaries for 2013 for the named executive officers are: Dean Schultz, $811,800; Lisa B. MacMillen, $520,000; Kenneth C. Miller, $423,300; Lawrence H. Parks, $419,600; Suzanne Titus-Johnson, $376,100 and David H. Martens, $364,200.  


On occasion, the Bank may pay for resort activities for employees, including our named executive officers, in connection with business-related meetings; and in some cases, the Bank may pay the expenses for spouses/partners accompanying employees to these meetings or other Bank-sponsored events. The President receives use of a Bank-owned vehicle.


The Board adopted the Corporate Senior Officer Severance Policy ("Senior Officers' Policy") applicable to the president, executive vice president, and senior vice presidents, effective June 1, 2011. The Senor Officers' Policy provides severance benefits in the event that the employee's employment is terminated because the employee's job or position is eliminated or because the job or position is substantially modified so that the employee is no longer qualified or cannot perform the revised job. For these officers, severance under the Senior Officers' Policy is equal to the greater of (i) 12 weeks of the officer's base salary, or (ii) the sum of three weeks of the officer's base salary, plus three weeks of the officer's base salary for each full year of service and three weeks of base salary prorated for each partial year of service at the Bank to a maximum of 52 weeks of base salary. The Senior Officers' Policy also provides one month of continued health and life insurance benefits and, at the Bank's discretion, outplacement assistance. The Senior Officers' Policy also provides severance payments in connection with a "Change in Control" (as defined by the Senior Officers' Policy).
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 115

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Sugar Ray Robinson should be recognized for his athletic achievements and commitment 

to young people. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Sugar Ray Robinson should be recognized for his athletic 

achievements and commitment to young people.

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson was born in Detroit, Michigan, 

on May 3, 1920; 

Whereas, in 1932, Robinson moved to New York City where 

he started boxing as an amateur, going undefeated in 89 

bouts, and winning the Golden Gloves featherweight title 

in 1939; 

Whereas, in 1940, he began boxing professionally and fought 

at New York City’s Madison Square Garden for the first 

time; 
2

•HRES 115 IH 

Whereas, in 1946, he won his first world title as a 

welterweight, and then held the middleweight title for 5 

years between 1951 and 1960; 

Whereas after retiring for a time he returned to box a series 

of exciting matches before permanently retiring on December 10, 1965; 

Whereas in a career spanning 25 years, he won 175 of 202 

bouts with 109 knockouts; 

Whereas his grace, speed, power, and mastery of the ring 

earned him international acclaim as one of the greatest 

fighters in boxing history; 

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson was elected into the Boxing 

Hall of Fame in 1967; 

Whereas, in 1969, he established the Sugar Ray Robinson 

Youth Foundation; and 

Whereas Sugar Ray Robinson died in Culver City, California, 

on April 12, 1989, at the age of 68: Now, therefore, be 

it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that Sugar Ray Robinson should be recog3 nized as one of history’s greatest professional boxers, 

4 whose dedication to boxing and commitment to young peo5 ple have earned him a permanent place in sports history.

Æ
##### 



Fiscal Year2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Weighted average shares outstandingClass A Common
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722
    
    
    
    1,722Class B Common (excluding shares issuable
upon exercise of stock options  accounted
for below)
    
    
    7,846
    
    
    
    7,872
    
    
    
    7,841Shares used in computation of basic earnings per
share
    
    
    9,568
    
    
    
    9,594
    
    
    
    9,563Add  Shares assumed issuable upon exercise of
stock options and restricted stock
    
    
    132
    
    
    
    109
    
    
    
    119Deduct  Shares assumed to be purchased for
treasury with proceeds from exercise of stock
options and restricted stock
    
    
    (94
    )
    
    
    (87
    )
    
    
    (90
    )Shares used in computation of diluted earnings
per common share
    
    
    9,606
    
    
    
    9,616
    
    
    
    9,592Net income available for common shares
    
    $
    323,478
    
    
    $
    313,363
    
    
    $
    331,740Basic earnings per common share
    
    $
    33.81
    
    
    $
    32.66
    
    
    $
    34.69Diluted earnings per common share
    
    $
    33.68
    
    
    $
    32.59
    
    
    $
    34.59
 Note:
    
    EPS calculations may not recalculate due to rounding.
# table14afull19

&8Page &P of &N
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos ARRIAGA-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-41249

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Arriaga-Rangel was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced to forty-six months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He contends that the sentence, which was within the pertinent guideline range, is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than needed to achieve the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Arriaga-Rangel argues that the guidelines give too much weight to his conviction of manslaughter and that the district court improperly assessed the effect that his cultural assimilation has on his likelihood to reoffend, particularly with respect to its decision to impose supervised release.

Following *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we review sentences for reasonableness in light of the factors set forth in § 3553(a), and we consider whether the sentence is an abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiapo,*564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir.2009). Under that standard, Arriaga-Rangel has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guideline term. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.2008). Rather, he has shown no more than a disagreement with the propriety of the sentence, which does not suffice to establish error in *295connection with it. *See United States v. Ruiz,*621 F.3d 890, 398 (5th Cir.2010); *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008).

Insofar as Arriaga-Rangel challenges the propriety of the district court’s exercise of its discretion to impose supervised release, that challenge is likewise unavailing. *See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado,*695 F.3d 324, 329-30 (5th Cir. 2012). Our examination of “the district court’s particularized remark at sentencing” shows no error in connection with the disputed decision. *See id.*

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.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1556** 

STEVEN A. GOYNES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOEL CAVAZOS, Police Officer (in his individual and official capacity); TIMOTHY SANTOS, Police Officer (in his individual and official capacity); THE CITY OF NORFOLK , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00542

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : October 16 , 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Steven A. Goynes, Appellant Pro Se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk , Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Steven A. Goynes appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Goynes v. Cavazos , No. 2:13

- cv - 00542

- AWA

- LRL (E.D. Va. May 8, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 102 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 102

               Honoring Erika Harold, Miss America 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2003

   Mr. Johnson of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Evans, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Mr. Crane, Mr. Weller, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Davis 
of Illinois, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Costello, Mr. 
Kirk, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Hyde, 
and Mr. Rush) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
               Honoring Erika Harold, Miss America 2003.

Whereas Erika Harold's remarkable achievements and her resolve to empower youth 
        against violence and degradation resulted in her winning the 2003 Miss 
        America Pagaent;
Whereas Miss Harold was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at the University of Illinois 
        in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, and was chosen to be a University of 
        Illinois Chancellor Scholar;
Whereas Miss Harold received first prize in the Afro-American Studies research 
        paper competition;
Whereas Miss Harold was selected as a finalist for the Truman Scholarship;
Whereas Miss Harold, in her capacity as Miss America, is pursuing the noble 
        cause of ending youth violence;
Whereas Miss Harold has postponed attending Harvard Law School so that she may 
        devote her time to promoting her campaign against youth violence;
Whereas Miss Harold is National Spokesperson for the Teen Victims Project of the 
        National Center for Victims of Crime;
Whereas Miss Harold is National Spokesperson for Fight Crime: Invest in Kids;
Whereas Miss Harold is a member of the National Advisory Board for Peace Games, 
        the National Board of Directors for the Center of Youth as Resources, 
        and the Advisory Council for the Empower Program;
Whereas Miss Harold's achievements, leadership, and future goals bring an 
        immense sense of pride to the residents of Urbana, Illinois, and to the 
        University of Illinois community; and
Whereas Miss Harold's strong will and loving spirit will motivate her as she 
        pursues her goal of ending youth violence: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates Erika Harold on being crowned Miss 
        America 2003;
            (2) honors her for her vision, determination, and 
        integrity; and
            (3) recognizes her as a strong positive role model for 
        youth.
                                 <all>
```
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 23, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-2075 Lower Tribunal No. 21-110-A-K

________________ 

### Madison Megerle, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the Circuit Court for Monroe, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Madison Megerle, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
|   |   | /s/      John M. Herndon                                                    |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John      M. HerndonAssistant      SecretaryThe      AquilaGroup of Fundssm |   |
# Tech doc table

https://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm

# Release table B

https://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm

# Release table C

https://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm

# Detailed table

https://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEB 21, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-14700

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00053-CR-ORL-22-JGG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

RODRIGO GUILLEN-HERRERA, 

a.k.a. Juan Martinez-Guillen, 

a.k.a. David Diaz, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(February 21, 2007)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

R. Fletcher Peacock, appointed counsel for Rodrigo Guillen-Herrera, has

filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, FOR ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
RESOURCES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         53,346
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  572,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               743,894
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 743,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,942,661
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,225,002
<COMMON>                                       261,205
<OTHER-SE>                                     28,785,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   743,894
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,809,755
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,832,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             175,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (198,791)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (198,791)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (198,791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-10598.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Laurie K. Gray, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S., Office Of The U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Claude Boisseau, Esquire, Law Offices Of George C. Boisseau, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT, RAWLINSON, and CUDAHY,** Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Gregory Walker (Walker) appeals his conviction and sentence.

1.The district court properly admitted the identification of Walker by Officer Griffin and Sergeant Do under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 701. Both witnesses had sufficient prior contacts with Walker to render their identifications helpful to the jury, and the evidence was more probative than prejudicial. *See United States v. Beck,*418 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2005) (Rule 701); *see also United States v. Henderson,*241 F.3d 638, 651 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Rule 403).

2. There was no Confrontation Clause violation in this case because the identification testimony was not testimonial, and Walker had a full opportunity to cross-examine both witnesses. *See Fenenbock v. Dir. of Corr.,*692 F.3d 910, 919 (9th Cir.2012), *as amended*(“[A] court violates the Confrontation Clause *only*when it prevents a defendant from examining a particular and relevant topic, such as bias ... ”) (emphasis added).

3. By applying the cross-referenced attempted murder guideline, the district court found that Walker acted with the specific intent to kill. Although the district court could have said more regarding its finding, a court’s resolution of disputed facts “need not be detailed and lengthy” to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. *United States v. Ingham,*486 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir.2007), *as amended.*

4. The sentence imposed by the district court was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly applied the cross-referenced attempted murder guideline and correctly calculated the Guidelines range. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (discussing procedural reasonableness). The resulting within-Guidelines sentence, was substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Blinkinsop,*606 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir.2010) (noting that a within-Guidelines sen*659tence is generally reasonable in the “mine run of cases”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>


                           EXHIBIT 12

     COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                   For Year Ended December 31, 1998

                    (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)



                                        West Penn Power Company

Earnings:
     Net Income                                   $112,620*
     Fixed charges (see below)                      70,274
     Income taxes                                   64,509*

     Total earnings                               $247,403*


Fixed Charges:
     Interest on long-term debt                   $ 61,727
     Other interest                                  5,913
     Estimated interest
       component of rentals                          2,634

     Total fixed charges                          $ 70,274


Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                                       3.52

__________

*Excludes the effect of the extraordinary charge.
Exhibit 23.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement Nos. 333-02845, 333-42445, 333-42447, 333-44922, 333-47277, 333-61128, and 333-171362 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 1, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Wausau Paper Corp. and subsidiaries (the Company),  and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting (which report on the Companys consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion),  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 1, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2
**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
In connection with the Annual Report of The Washington Post Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending January 2, 2005 (the “Report”), I, John B. Morse, Jr., Vice President–Finance(principal financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date:  March 2, 2005 /s/  John B. Morse, Jr.   John B. Morse, Jr.,   Vice President–Finance