alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 1140.

#### Cogswell *v.*Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co.

May 20, 1946.

*Royal W. Irwin*for petitioner.

*Edward W. Rawlins*for respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The petition is granted, except as to the question whether the jury could have found respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 152 of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The judgment is reversed. *Tiller*v. *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,*318 U. S. 54, 67-8; *Bailey*v. *Central Vermont R. Co.,*319 U. S. 350, 353-4; *Lavender*v. *Kurn,*327 U. S. 645.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Wheeler, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[852 NYS2d 874]

Same memorandum as in *People v Wheeler*(49 AD3d 1230 [2008]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.                    

*Date:*                         September 24-26, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         6:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.                    

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alan P. Koretsky, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 35 Convent Drive, Room 6A 908, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2232,                         *koretskya@ninds.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: August 15, 2017.

Sylvia L. Neal, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-17665 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
exv10w17






Exhibit 10.17




SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




     Effective
March 3, 2009, non-employee directors
receive the following standard compensation for their service on the Board of Directors and committees of
the Board of Directors:



     Cash Compensation




	 	 	 	 	 
	Position	 	Amount
	Non-employee (“NE”) Director Annual Retainer
	 	$	12,000	 
	NE Director Board Meeting Attendance Fee (Telephonic)
	 	$	1,000 	($500)
	NE Director Committee Meeting Attendance Fee (Telephonic)
	 	$	1,000 	($500)
	NE Director Audit Committee Meeting Attendance (Live or telephonic)
	 	$	1,000	 
	Chair of Audit Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	3,500	 
	Chair of Compensation Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	3,500	 
	Chair of Nomination Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	2,000	 






     Equity
Awards




     Each non-employee director receives an annual stock option grant of 20,000 shares of common
stock, with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the date of
grant and a term of ten years, or an equivalent grant of shares of restricted stock. Effective
March 3, 2009, the Board adopted a new vesting schedule for option awards and restricted stock
grants, with the grants to vest in full one year from the date of grant. Stock options awarded
prior to March 3, 2009 vested over a period of 42 months, with 14.29% vesting on each 6-month
anniversary of the grant date.



     Expense reimbursement




     Non-employee directors are reimbursed for travel, meals and accommodation expenses incurred for
attending any Board meetings.
**STATSURE      DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC. FORMERLY SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS,      INC.**

**June      30, 2005**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. Sec.1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. for                the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and                Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities                Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the                information contained in the such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A                of                StatSure Diagnostic Systems, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,                2005                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and                results of operations of StatSure Diagnostic Systems,                Inc. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/              Leo Ehrlich                                           |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Leo Ehrlich                                                            |   |
|   |   | Chief              Financial Officer                                   |   |
|   |   | (principal financial officerand              duly authorized officer)  |

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2631

___________________________

Manuel Lopez-Ajualip, by next friend Santos Lopez-Gabriel

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of the United States1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: February 23, 2021

Filed: February 26, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRASZ, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

1Monty Wilkinson is serving as Acting Attorney General of the United States,

and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

43(c). 
Guatemalan citizen and native Santos Lopez-Gabriel, on behalf of his minor

son, Manuel Lopez-Ajualip (Petitioner), petitions for review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) order. The BIA dismissed his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision, which denied asylum, withholding of removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We reject Petitioner’s

challenge to the IJ’s jurisdiction over his removal proceedings, as it is foreclosed by

this court’s precedent. See Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019)

(jurisdiction over removal proceedings vests when charging document, such as notice

to appear, is filed with immigration court). Further, we conclude that substantial

evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny the asylum application, because a

reasonable fact finder could conclude that Petitioner failed to demonstrate past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future prosecution on account of a protected

ground. See Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of

review). Because he did not prove eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to

satisfy the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal, see Martin Martin v.

Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019) (recognizing more rigorous standard of

proof); and the claim for CAT relief was also properly denied, as it was based on the

same evidence as the claims for asylum and withholding of removal, see Ming Ming

Wijono v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of asylum and

withholding of removal dictates outcome on CAT claim when petitioner alleged same

factual basis for all 3 claims). The petition for review is denied. 

______________________________

-2-
----

|   | · | a      salary, reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board of      Directors of Frontier; |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | eligibility      for an annual cash bonus, as determined by the Compensation      Committee; |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | eligibility      for awards under Frontier’s Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, as      determined by the CompensationCommittee; |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | health,      life, disability, death and other insurance and/or    benefits; |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | defined      contribution pension and savings plan;and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | vacation,      paid sick leave and all other employeebenefits. |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Executive      Officer                                                  |  2009      Annual Base Salary | Incentive      Target for 2009 (Percentage for Base Salary) |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| James      R. GibbsChairman      of the Board                                 |  $975,000                     |  100%                                                  |
| Michael      C. JenningsPresident      and Chief Executive Officer            |  $775,000                     |  100%                                                  |
| W.      Paul EismanExecutive      Vice President-Refining & Marketing     |  $518,000                     |  70%                                                   |
| Douglas      S. AronExecutive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  $380,000                     |  60%                                                   |
| Jon      D. GalvinVice      President                                         |  $305,000                     |  50%                                                   |
| Nancy      J. ZupanVice      President and Chief Accounting Officer           |  $325,000                     |  50%                                                   |
| J.      Currie BechtolVice      President-General Counsel & Secretary     |  $342,000                     |  50%                                                   |
#### FOUNDRY EQUIPMENT CO. v. CARL-MAYER CORP. et al.

Civ. No. 26952.

United States District Court, N. D, Ohio, E. D.

Oct. 10, 1950.

See also D.C., 10 F.R.D. 200.

*109John F. Oberlin, Lawrence C. Spieth, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Vern L. Oldham, B. C. Boer, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent infringement action.

Plaintiff objects to defendants’ Interrogatories 1, 3, 4, *7, 9,*10, 11 and 13?

Interrogatories *7, 9*and 13 request the production of certain documents and letters. • This court has consistently ' held that documents arid letter-s cannot be produced by the procedure provided in Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., D.C., *9*F.R.D. 615; Britting v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 536.

Interrogatory No. 1 requests certain information relating to conception and disclosure of a patent in suit. This Interrogatory should be answered as it will disclose relevant information. At the same time defendants should disclose to plaintiff dates and information relating to any invention or prior art upon which the defendants at this time expect to rely to overcome the record filing date. It is to be understood, however, that defendants are not limited at trial to proof of invention or prior use disclosed, because of this ruling. i

Objection to Interrogatories 3, 4, ■10 and 11 are made on the ground of lack of relevance. A broader standard of rel■evance is employed when the objection is made to interrogatories, than is used when the objection is made to testimony given at trial. It is not too clear what limits are to be placed on interrogatories, but .unless the information sought can have .no possible bearing upon the issues disclosed by the pleadings, the interrogatory should be answered. Here defendants’ interrogatories seem to have some bearing on possible issues and should for that reason be answered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         461,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,069,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,000
<INVENTORY>                                    354,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,156,865
<PP&E>                                      13,808,465
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,274,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,476,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,770,683
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        289
<COMMON>                                         6,149
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,031,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,476,313
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,471,767
<CGS>                                       15,474,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,372,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               717,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             641,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,159,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (580,835)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,578,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  14,102
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,564,291)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.98)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS RENE MONTEAGUDOVILLEGAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-73516 

Agency No. A202-184-573 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Rene Monteagudo-Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 18 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-73516 

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the 

petition for review.

As to the particular social groups raised to the agency, Monteagudo-Villegas 

does not challenge the agency’s determination that they are not cognizable. See 

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not 

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). As to the 

particular social groups that Monteagudo-Villegas raises for the first time in his 

opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 

F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not 

presented to the agency). Thus, Monteagudo-Villegas’s asylum claim fails. 

In his opening brief, Monteagudo-Villegas does not raise any argument 

challenging, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that he waived his 

withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Monteagudo-Villegas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured 

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El 

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 
3 20-73516 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Exhibit
10.08


FIRST
AMENDMENT


TO


NORTHERN
ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY


DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN





WHEREAS,
Northern Illinois Gas Company (the “Company”) previously established the
Northern Illinois Gas Company Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended
and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects effective as of
January 1, 2008.


NOW
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:





I.  Section
2 of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 2 is
substituted in lieu thereof:


“SECTION
2.  Participation.  A
Director of the Company may elect to defer the payment or portion thereof owed
for the:




(i)           
retainers; or




(ii)           meeting
fees; or




(iii)          any
combination of (i)-(ii) above.




Such
election must be communicated to the Company in writing prior to December 31 of
the year prior to the term for which the Director may be
reelected.  For a Director first elected or appointed to the Board,
such election shall be communicated to the Company in writing within thirty (30)
days of the date the Director is first elected or appointed to the Board;
provided such deferment shall apply only to the compensation earned after such
written election is communicated to the Company.  Once made an
election shall continue in force with respect to succeeding terms of the
Director’s service unless the Director shall advise the Company in writing prior
to December 31 of the year prior to the year of reelection that he or she elects
to terminate or change the terms of such deferment effective with such
reelection.  In addition, such election shall specify the manner and
date on which the Director elects to receive payment of the deferred amount
under Subsection 3.1 below.  Directors who were Directors on









January
1, 2008, shall file an election as to the time and form of payment of all their
deferrals, whether made prior to or after such date by December 31, 2008;
provided, no such election may accelerate payment of any deferrals into
2008.  Notwithstanding any deferral election in existence to the
contrary, no meeting fees paid after the Director’s Separation from Service
(whether or not earned prior to such Separation from Service) may be deferred
under this Plan.”









2