alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.10











EXHIBIT 10.10




ASSISTED LIVING CONCEPTS, INC.




SUMMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




          Directors who are not employees of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. are paid an annual retainer
of $15,000 per year, a fee of $1,500 for each Board and committee meeting they attend, and $500 for
each telephonic Board or committee meeting they attend. In addition, the annual retainer for the
Board chairman is $50,000 and the annual retainer for the vice chairman is $25,000. The annual
retainer for the chair of the Audit Committee is an additional $15,000 and the annual retainer for
the other committee chairs is an additional $10,000. Each non-employee director was granted 20,000
tandem stock options/stock appreciation rights that become exercisable May 5, 2009, and which have
an exercise price of $6.42. Non-employee directors may receive yearly grants of additional
stock-based awards as determined by the full board of directors. Non-employee directors are
reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
Directors who are also employees of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. receive no compensation for
their service as directors.
Exhibit 23.3



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
and Prospectuses on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-51749 and 33-64343) of Wisconsin
Electric Power Company of our report dated January 27, 1995 appearing in  
Item 8 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northern States Power Company
(Wisconsin) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 (File No. 10-3140).





/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 27, 1997
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50285

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REYDESEL VALENZUELA-PARRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-2073-ALL

--------------------

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Reydesel

Valenzuela-Parra raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of David Battaglia, Petitioner, v Rebecca H. Cort, as Deputy Commissioner of Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities of New York State Education Department, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 787]

*1180It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination of the Hearing Officer affirming respondent’s decision denying his application for increased funding on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence *(see*CPLR 7803 [4]). Respondent concedes that the Hearing Officer misconstrued both respondent’s policy with respect to vocational rehabilitation services for persons seeking to be self-employed and petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to that policy. We note in addition that the Hearing Officer issued his determination prior to the deadline for the parties’ submissions of legal memoranda and therefore did not have the benefit of those submissions. “[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination . . . [that] an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” *(Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*77 NY2d 753, 758 [1991] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino,*41 NY2d 913 [1977]; *Matter of Stone Landing Corp. v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville,*5 AD3d 496, 497-498 [2004]). We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to respondent for the Hearing Officer to make a new determination on the same evidence based upon respondent’s policy with respect to vocational rehabilitation services for persons seeking to be self-employed and petitioner’s request for relief pursuant to that policy and after receipt and consideration of legal memoranda. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 423 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 423

  To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the 
               annual written privacy notice requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2015

Mr. Moran (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Cotton, 
Mr. Scott, Mr. Heller, Ms. Warren, Mr. Corker, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Toomey, 
 Mr. Warner, and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; which was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the 
               annual written privacy notice requirement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Privacy Notice Modernization Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL WRITTEN PRIVACY NOTICE REQUIREMENT UNDER 
              THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT.

    Section 503 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6803) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Exception to Annual Written Notice Requirement.--A financial 
institution that--
            ``(1) provides nonpublic personal information in accordance 
        with the provisions of subsection (b)(2) or (e) of section 502 
        or regulations prescribed under section 504(b);
            ``(2) has not changed its policies and practices with 
        respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the 
        policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent 
        disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this section; 
        and
            ``(3) otherwise provides customers access to such most 
        recent disclosure in electronic or other form permitted by 
        regulations prescribed under section 504,
shall not be required to provide an annual written disclosure under 
this section, until such time as the financial institution fails to 
comply with paragraph (1), (2), or (3).''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 1211.

No. 1212.

#### Sanford *v.*Missouri; and Ellis *v.*Missouri.

June 10, 1946.

*Scovel Richardson*for petitioners.

*J. E. Taylor,*Attorney General of Missouri, and *Frank W. Hayes,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
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 Veterans Affairs

                    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee, previously scheduled to be held at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Conference Room 630, Washington, DC 20420, on September 18-19, 2017,                     *has been cancelled*.                

                    For more information, please contact Alejandra Paulovich, Program Analyst, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services at (202) 461-6016 or via email at                     *Alejandra.Paulovich@va.gov*.                

Dated: August 11, 2017.

Jelessa M. Burney,

Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-17362 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at July 29, 2000 and the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the twenty-six weeks ended July 29,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                                          126,200
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 1,978,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     27,200
<INVENTORY>                                                  34,610,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             39,715,000
<PP&E>                                                       55,355,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                               24,988,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               72,645,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        14,717,500
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                     48,513,700
<OTHER-SE>                                                 (16,779,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 72,645,600
<SALES>                                                      82,688,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             82,688,700
<CGS>                                                        51,547,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                51,547,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             37,575,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1,231,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (7,666,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (7,666,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (7,666,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.28)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 11 - Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings:

Net income per share -

         Net income per share is based upon the weighted average number of
shares outstanding during the year, after deduction of Treasury Stock, as well
as the dilutive effect of stock options, if material.

                                                       1996           1995
                                                    ----------     ----------

Shares -

   Weighted average shares outstanding               9,297,925      9,594,040

   Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding            -0-            -0-
                                                    ----------     ----------
                                                     9,297,925      9,594,040

Net income                                          $4,709,000     $4,300,000
                                                    ----------     ----------

Net income  per share                               $      .51     $      .45
                                                    ----------     ----------

                                       32
#### Blue Heron Construction, LLC, Respondent, v Fiberglass Structures & Tank Co., Inc., Doing Business as FST, et al., Respondents, and Howard Robson, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[852 NYS2d 899]

*1226Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this interpleader action seeking a determination of the rights of defendants with respect to funds being held by plaintiff as payment for the work of defendant Fiberglass Structures *&*Tank Co., Inc., doing business as FST (FST), on a public improvement project. Plaintiff was the general contractor on the project, and it subcontracted a portion of the work to FST. Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of defendant First State Bank of Wyoming (Bank) seeking an award of the funds held by plaintiff. The Bank established that its security interest in FST’s accounts receivable, perfected in 1994, had priority over the interest of defendant Howard Robson, Inc. (Robson) based upon a judgment obtained by Robson against FST in 2002 *(see Board of Mgrs. of Horizon Condominium v Glick Dev.*Affiliates, 276 AD2d 386 [2000], *lv denied*97 NY2d 605 [2001]; *O’Hara & Shaver v Empire Bituminous Prods.,*67 Misc 2d 47, 49 [1971]; *Matter of William Iselin & Co. v Burgess & Leigh,*52 Misc 2d 821, 823 [1967]). Contrary to Robson’s contentions, the Bank further established that FST was in default under the terms of the security agreement executed by the Bank and FST *(see generally Bankers Trust Co. v Dowler & Co.,*47 NY2d 128, 134 [1979], *rearg denied*47 NY2d 1012 [1979]), and that the Bank properly exercised its rights in the event of default under that security agreement *(see generally William Iselin & Co.,*52 Misc 2d at 823-824). The record does not support Robson’s contention that the Bank waived its rights under the security agreement and, indeed, the terms of that agreement preclude a finding of such waiver by the Bank *(see Board of Mgrs. of Horizon Condominium,*276 AD2d 386 [2000]). The record also does not support Robson’s contention that the Bank acted in a commercially unreasonable manner *(see Bankers Trust Co.,*47 NY2d at 134-137).

*1227Finally, “the undisputed facts and irrefutable documentary evidence” establish that the Bank’s perfected security interest in FST’s accounts has priority over Robson’s interest as a judgment creditor, and conclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient to support the contention of Robson that further discovery is warranted *(id.*at 137; *see William Iselin & Co.,*52 Misc 2d at 824). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZVICENTE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 14-10455

 14-10456

D.C. Nos. 4:14-cr-00775-RCC

 4:14-cr-50065-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

 In these consolidated appeals, Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Vicente appeals his

guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the revocation of supervised release and 6-month

FILED

OCT 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
consecutive sentence imposed thereupon. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Gutierrez-Vicente’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Gutierrez-Vicente the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-10455 & 14-10456
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 406 

To waive and repay certain debts relating to assistance provided to individuals 

and households. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. VITTER, and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To waive and repay certain debts relating to assistance 

provided to individuals and households. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Assistance 

5 Recoupment Fairness Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEBTS ARISING SINCE 2012. 

7 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered 

8 assistance’’ means assistance provided— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 406 IS

1 (1) under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford 

2 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

3 U.S.C. 5174); and 

4 (2) in relation to a major disaster declared by 

5 the President under section 401 of the Robert T. 

6 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) during the period beginning 

8 on January 1, 2012 and ending on the date of en9 actment of this Act. 

10 (b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Administrator of the 

11 Federal Emergency Management Agency shall waive a 

12 debt owed to the United States related to covered assist13 ance provided to an individual or household, unless the 

14 debt involves fraud, the intentional presentation of a false 

15 claim, or intentional misrepresentation by the debtor or 

16 any party having an interest in the claim. 

17 (c) REPAYMENT AUTHORITY.—The Administrator of 

18 the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall reim19 burse a debtor for any payments made by the debtor on 

20 a debt owed to the United States related to covered assist21 ance, if the Administrator would have otherwise been re22 quired to waive the debt under subsection (b). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00392

- C R



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

GUSTAVO TIJERINA SANDOVAL

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 197t h District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.



## ORDER

Before Justices Benavides

, Longoria , and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the State’s unopposed motion to stay the

proceedings in this Court.

Appellant was convicted in the trial court of two counts: c ount o ne imposed the

death penalty and is on direct appeal with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX

.

C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. art. 37.071(h) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 71.1. Count t wo imposed a sentence of2

life imprisonment and is before this Court. Appellant has filed b riefs in both the court of

criminal appeals and this Court on his conviction.

The State has come before this Court asking us to stay the appeal before us

because appellant’s briefs have points of error that overlap and the court of criminal

appeals ’ disp osition could be dispositive of those points of error. Appellant’s counsel has

indicated to the State that they have no opposition to the request.

The Court, having fully examined and considered the State’s request to stay

GRANTS the motion and ABATES the current appeal before this Court . The parties are

ordered to notify this Court when the court of criminal appeals issues its opinion on

appellant’s direct appeal in order for this proceeding to be reinstated.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

23 r d th e day of February 2021

.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
                                       TO
                        SHAREHOLDER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

The  Shareholder  Maintenance  Agreement  between  The AAL Mutual  Funds and AAL
Capital Management Corporation, as amended, effective January 8, 1997, is hereby
amended, June 1, 1998, as follows:

         The Shareholder Maintenance Agreement, is amended to adjust the payment
         the Funds will pay to AAL Capital Management Corporation, which will be
         the  difference  between the Firstar Trust Company  published  transfer
         agency  fees  and  the  fees  actually  charged  to  the  Funds,   plus
         out-of-pocket  costs which would  otherwise  be charged to the Funds by
         Firstar.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF the parties  have caused this  Amendment to be signed by the
respective officers effective June 1, 1998.



ATTEST:                                      THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS


By:  /s/ Robert G. Same                      By:  /s/ Ronald G. Anderson  
     ----------------------------------           ------------------------------
     Robert G. Same, Secretary                    Ronald G. Anderson, President



ATTEST:                                      AAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
                                             CORPORATION


By:  /s/ Robert G. Same                      By:  /s/ Ronald G. Anderson
     ----------------------------------           ------------------------------
     Robert G. Same, Secretary                    Ronald G. Anderson, President



<PAGE>



                        SHAREHOLDER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
                                   SCHEDULE A
                            (EFFECTIVE June 1, 1998)

                           The AAL Capital Growth Fund
                                The AAL Bond Fund
                           The AAL Municipal Bond Fund
                            The AAL Money Market Fund
          The AAL U.S. Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2001
          The AAL U.S. Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2006
      The AAL Mid Cap Stock Fund (f/k/a The AAL Smaller Company Stock Fund)
            The AAL Equity Income Fund (f/k/a The AAL Utilities Fund)
                           The AAL International Fund
                          The AAL Small Cap Stock Fund
                          The AAL High Yield Bond Fund
                              The AAL Balanced Fund