alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
!"#"!#"$#   %  &'     (   )* +,, !"#"!#"$#-./	
.

011233	.3"45300#

( 6 6 7    

 !8%''.,% !"#"3#	
	.33!2!49!.43! "4 5 3	#  
   %),6..6,66/43!3


    .      &6.

:

 !"#"!#"$#6%       .,;%< !"#"!#"$#, 6 	

	.039209.0"4530	#=.&       &
%

***

2   .  6 & >

. 
7KH +RQRUDEOH $UWKXU - 7DUQRZ 8

WKH (DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI 0LFKLJDQ VLWWLQJ 

3

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	


2: 
=?*@
=

AAAAAAAAAAAA


1,7('

7$7(6 2)

$0(5,&$.

	



 2%(57

B((

&,7&+(//.

		

$


D

999!9EF5

$H&

D2H&

<H&$ 
*.5GI&


$ :(.D
 	

 	

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA




	D6GF.5,.:.$& G <. $*
$ 
*
?D 
$
?$

: ?J.5,.:.$


D6GF.5,.:.$&G<. $*
$ 
*
?D 
$
? $

: ?J.5,.:.$







<:J5? 2 &$ 
*. G . 5 G  , B

&  >   ,  2  . K$5$
? ?&$D

*

: 2, !. 3. 2 D ?

$
;26&.    .    5,.:B$$&..6.     6. ; & ,(&6.6)/,   7  &    , .      66;6&,%,,

$:,3.

;&,'

	  .,6   *K. ,6&      )62>6   
 D.+-6  %  ) ,  L, D  & ,;&>

**

&

&2 !"#"!#"$#%&


 !"#"!#"$#.

    /;  6 %.  	
"4 5 300#  &    , & ,;  
 6.&/$6!"#"!#"$#
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BEVERLY LOUISE BROOK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1026

[November 17, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Kathleen H. Roberts, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

432021MM000464A.

Beverly Louise Brook, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Nassib G. Chamoun, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aspect Medical Systems, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: November 8, 2007           /s/ Nassib G. Chamoun   Nassib G. Chamoun   *Chief Executive Officer*
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00863

- CR EX PARTE JOSE ISABEL MARTINEZ
- HERNANDEZ From the 341st Judicial District Court , Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- cvk

- 001615

- D2 Honorable Elma T. Salinas

- Ender , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2012
AFFIRMED This is an appea l from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. DISCUSSION On October 5, 2011, appellant was arrested without a warrant and charged with aggravated sexual assault of an elderly or disabled person. On that same date, a complaint was filed. A few weeks later, another complaint was filed charging appellant with burglary of a habitation, a charge arising from the same incident as the aggravated assault. On January 18, 2012, appellant was indicted on both offe nses. The trial court set bail at $100,000.04

- 11

- 00863

- CR

- 2

- On appeal, appellant contends he was arrested pursuant to the first complaint, which did not allege probable cause. Therefore, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his application for a writ of ha beas corpus because he was entitled to bail set at an amount not to exceed $10,000 pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.033(b), which provides, in pertinent part, that

. . . a person who is arrested without a warrant and who is detained in jail must be released on bond, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, not later than the 48th hour after the person ’ s arrest if the person was arrested for a felony and a magistrate has not determined whether probable cause exists to believe that the perso n committed the offense.

. . . . T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 17.033(b) (West 2005). Habeas corpus is by definition an extraordinary writ in which the restraint of one ’ s liberty is challenged as illegal. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. arts. 11.01 and 11.23 ( West 2005 ); Saucedo v. State , 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). However,

w here the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the legal issues raised are rendered moot. See Ex par te Branch , 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Saucedo , 795 S.W.2d at 9. Even if appellant was arrested pursuant to a complaint that did not allege probable cause, he has since been indicted; therefore, his argument under article 17.033(b) is moot . Except for his argument under article 17.033(b), appellant does not otherwise challenge the amount of his bail. Therefore, we do not consider whether the bail amount of $100,000 was excessive. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

San dee Bryan Marion, Justice Do not publish
December 15, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE STATE O F TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECT ION OF E. C.

NO. 14

- 15

- 00362

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the order for temporary in

- patient mental health services , signed April 15, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We DISMISS the appeal as moot

. We order E.C. to pay all costs in curred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
1

Overview of the 1998 revision of the Consumer 

Price Index

John S. Greenlees, Charles C. Mason

This article is available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/12/art1full.pdf.

Related Subjects

Consumer price index Statistical programs and methods

December 1996
exv10w28



Exhibit 10.28






	

2009 Executive Cash Incentive Bonus Plan








 








	

 Incentive Structure

 Quarterly weightings

 Metrics

 Weighting of metrics

 Target setting

 Target leverage and ranges








 








	

Quarterly Weightings

For CEO

Q1 20% of annual target (25% of annual financial target)

Q2 20% of annual target (25% of annual financial target)

Q3 20% of annual target (25% of annual financial target)

Q4 20% of annual target (25% of annual financial target)

Q4 20% of total target (100% of MBO target)



For Vice Presidents

Q1 25% of annual financial & MBO target

Q2 25% of annual financial & MBO target

Q3 25% of annual financial & MBO target

Q4 25% of annual financial & MBO target











 








	

Metrics

AMRG

Defined as average monthly gross revenue growth during a
quarter

Adjusted EBITDA Margin

Defined as GAAP operating income, plus depreciation and
amortization, plus non-cash stock based compensation,
calculated as a percentage of net revenue

Individual MBOs

MBOs will be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-
based








 








	

Weighting of Metrics

 Weighting of metrics - CEO

AMRG - 56% (Payable Quarterly)

Adjusted EBITDA Margin - 24% (Payable Quarterly)

Individual Annual MBOs - 20% (Payable Annually)



 Weighting of metrics - Vice Presidents

AMRG - 50% (Payable Quarterly)

Adjusted EBITDA Margin - 20% (Payable Quarterly)

Individual Quarterly MBOs  - 30% (Payable Quarterly)











 








	

Target Setting

AMRG set equal to budget / reforecast levels

Set at beginning of year and mid-year

Adjusted EBITDA Margin set equal to budget / reforecast
levels

Set at beginning of year and mid-year

Individual MBOs

Set at beginning of respective quarters for Vice Presidents and at
beginning of year for CEO

Set by CEO for Vice Presidents

Set by Compensation Committee for CEO









 








	

Target Leverage and Ranges

AMRG

Minimum threshold 85%; payout of 60% of target

Maximum threshold 140%; payout of 200% of target

Adjusted EBITDA margin

Target EBITDA Margin - minimum (- one percentage point)
payout of 95% of target

Target EBITDA Margin - maximum (+ one percentage point);
payout of 105% of target

MBOs

No minimum thresholds

Maximum thresholds 100%

Payout equal to weighted % attainment of targets













 








	

Target Leverage and Ranges
   Achievement    85%   90%   95%   100%   105%   110%   115%   120%   125%   130%   135%   140%
   Payout Percentage1   60%   73%   87%   100%   113%   127%   140%   153%   167%   180%   193%   200%

AMRG Leverage Model
   Achievement    < Target EBITDA - 1%   Target EBITDA  - 1%   Target EBITDA %   Target EBITDA  + 1%    > Target EBITDA  + 1%
   Payout Percentage1   0%   95%   100%   105%   105%

Adjusted EBITDA Leverage Model

1Linear interpolation between data points

1Linear interpolation between data points
March 27 , 201 2



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MAYOR ANNISE PARKER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00 3 53

- CV V.
AFEWORK HUNEGNAW, Appellee

____________________ This cause, an appeal from the order denying appellant Mayor Annise Parker, in her Official Capacity, As Mayor of the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction
, signed April 5 , 20 11 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record
and find no error in the order. We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED

.

We order appellant Mayor Annise Parker, in her Official Capacity, As Mayor of the City of Houston to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this
decision ce rtified below for observance.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40351 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NANCY KELLEY THETFORD COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-101-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nancy Kelley Thetford Cooper appeals her sentence following her guilty plea conviction of bank fraud. Cooper argues that the district court abused its discretion in departing upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range and that the district court erred in refusing to group the present offense with an offense for which Cooper had previously been sentenced. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as the district court relied uponNo. 03-40351 -2- permissible factors not already taken into consideration by the Sentencing Guidelines in deciding to depart. See United States v. Ravitch , 128 F.3d 865, 871 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (1998). The district court did not err in refusing to group the present offense with an offense for which Cooper had previously been sentenced. See United States v. Tolbert , 306 F.3d 244, 247- 48 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LEASE AGREEMENT

     WHEREAS, DIALYSIS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Florida corporation with
offices at 1344 Ashton Road, Suite 201, Hanover, Maryland (the "Lessor"), and
DCA OF LEMOYNE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation (formerly Dialysis Services
of Pennsylvania, Inc. - Lemoyne), with offices at 27 Miller Street, Lemoyne,
Pennsylvania (the "Lessee"), entered into a Lease Agreement dated December
23, 1998 (the "Lease") for 5,386 square feet of rentable space (the "Space");
and

     WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee wish to renew the Lease for an additional
five (5) years through December 31, 2008.

     NOW, THEREFORE, Lessor and Lessee, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and promises contained in this Renewal and Amendment No. 1 to the
Lease (hereinafter "First Renewal"), and the consideration provided herein,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, and the parties intending to be legally bound,
agree as follows:

     1.  All capitalized terms shall have the meaning as provided for in
the Lease, except as otherwise defined in this First Renewal.

     2.  Lessor waives compliance with Section 2.2(ii) of the Lease and
accepts Lessee's execution of this First Renewal as the first five (5) year
renewal of the Lease through December 31, 2008.

     3.  Section 2.2 (iii) is amended to provide for the Base Rent for the
First Renewal to be $9.72 per square foot, which will aggregate Fifty-Two
Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Two and 00/100 Dollars ($52,352.00), or Four
Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Three and 00/100 Dollars ($4,363.00) per month.
The Base Rent for the Second Renewal Period shall be $12.46 per square foot.

     4.  Section 4.1 is amended to reflect the new Base Rent as provided for
in Section 3 of this First Renewal.

     All other terms of the Lease, otherwise than as modified in this First
Renewal, shall continue in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have each caused this First Renewal
 to be signed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized,
as of the date set opposite their respective names.

                             DIALYSIS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

                                /s/ Thomas K. Langbein
DATED: December 30, 2003     By:-------------------------------------
                                THOMAS K. LANGBEIN, Chairman of the Board

                             DCA OF LEMOYNE, INC.

                                /s/ Stephen W. Everett
DATED: December 30, 2003     By:-------------------------------------
                                STEPHEN W. EVERETT, CEO and President
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2125

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Griffin Riley Davis

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: February 1, 2021

Filed: February 10, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Griffin Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pleaded guilty to a firearms offense. His counsel has moved for leave

1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.
to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by departing upward from the Guidelines; and did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Vasquez, 552 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2009) (departures from

sentencing Guidelines are reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for

substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of

discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight

to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

IRS Proposed Regulations to Simplify Retirement Plan Distribution Rules

by William J. Wiatrowski

Originally Posted: February 26, 2003

Early in 2001, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations that would simplify the calculations that

individuals must make to determine their distributions from certain retirement plans. The regulations cover Individual

Retirement Arrangements (IRA), retirement savings plans, and other similar accounts that include tax-deferred income. In

general, these plans allow participants to defer tax on deposited funds until retirement age. Funds cannot be withdrawn prior

to age 591⁄2 without a penalty. However, funds must be withdrawn beginning at age 701⁄2 so that the previously untaxed

deposits plus interest are subject to tax over the remaining life expectancy of the participant. (These distribution rules apply to

the portion of retirement accounts that is tax deferred; previously taxed deposits, such as those under a Roth IRA, are not

subject to the required distribution rules.)

Prior to the new rules, plan participants were required to make irrevocable decisions about the future distribution of their

funds at age 701⁄2 on the basis of life expectancy and anticipated beneficiaries. The calculations tended to be complex, often

requiring the assistance of financial advisors, and they were perceived as unreasonably restrictive.

According to the IRS, "The new proposed regulations simplify the rules by

• "Providing a simple, uniform table that all employees can use to determine the minimum distribution required during

their lifetime. . . . • "Permitting the required minimum distribution during the employee’s lifetime to be calculated without regard to the

beneficiary’s age . . . • "Permitting the beneficiary to be determined as late as the end of the year following the year of the employee’s

death. . . . • "Permitting the calculation of post-death minimum distributions to take into account an employee’s remaining life

expectancy at the time of death, . . .

"These simplifications would also have the effect of reducing the required minimum distribution for the vast majority of

employees."

The effective date of these new rules is for calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2002, although the rules

specifically state that taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for calendar year 2001.

Source: "Required Distributions from Retirement Plans," Federal Register, January 17, 2001, pp. 3928-54.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Information and Marketing Services, PSB Suite 2850, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC

20212-0001 | www.bls.gov/OPUB | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | Contact Us
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Matter of the Marriage of Christine Ruth Slanker and Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr.

, and In the Intere st of T.L.S., a Child

No. 06

- 13

- 00049

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 77863 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the Appellant,

Ted Eugene Slanker, Jr., to dismiss the appeal by agreement should be granted. Therefore, we

dismiss the appeal.

We further order that costs on appeal are divided equally between the parties.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Deb ra K. Autrey, Clerk
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 26, 2011

Mr. J. Mike Johanson

Johanson & Fairless, L.L.P.

1456 First Colony Boulevard

Sugar Land, TX 77479

Ms. Kathryn V. Smyser

Kathryn Smyser PLLC

Bank of America Center

700 Louisiana St., Suite 2300

Houston, TX 77002-2740

RE:Case Number:  10-0145

Court of Appeals Number:  01-07-00572-CV

Trial Court Number:  350-605-401

Style:G & H TOWING COMPANY, ET AL.

v.

CORY WAYNE MAGEE, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/082611.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 10-0145Page 1**