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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134109 & (73) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134109 

 COA: 261276 

Macomb CC: 2004-002865-FC 

KAREEM DALE RHODES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1010 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 17, 2007 

 Clerk
exv10w96





Exhibit 10.96




AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO

THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS




(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2010)



     THE METLIFE PLAN FOR TRANSITION ASSISTANCE FOR OFFICERS (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as
follows:




Section 1.4.05 of the Plan is hereby amended, by way of clarification, by adding the
following phrase at the end of subsection (b)(4) thereof to read as follows:




“or is eligible under any other severance plan maintained or sponsored by the Company, a
Subsidiary or a MetLife Enterprise Affiliate”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has caused this amendment to be
executed by an officer thereunto duly authorized on the date noted below the officer’s signature.


METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY




	 	 	 	 	 

	By:
	 	/s/ Lynne E. DiStasio	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Name/Title:
	 	Lynne E. DiStasio, VP	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Date:
	 	December 15, 2010	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Witness:
	 	/s/ Lucida Plummer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999             APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,351                   1,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,640                  28,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                       829                     829
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,579                  36,579
<PP&E>                                          22,166                  22,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,500                  11,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,377                 143,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,714                  22,714
<BONDS>                                         45,200                  45,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           101                     101
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,546                  74,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,377                 143,377
<SALES>                                         61,263                 178,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,263                 178,491
<CGS>                                           41,407                 121,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,407                 121,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,814                  49,781
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   304                     888
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,125                   3,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    886                 (1,369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       521                   (380)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                365                   (989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       365                   (989)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04                  (0.10)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 12, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 12, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0506. IKEEM MOORE v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2006RCCR00323
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpiresWashington, DCExecutive DirectorMartin I. SlateEXSCV..................Washington, DCAssistant Executive Director, Legislative AffairsJudy H. SchubGSSC15..................WASHINGTON, DCDeputy Executive Director and Chief NegotiatorEllen A. HennessySLSC............................Washington, DCDeputy Executive Director and Chief Financial OfficerN. Anthony CalhounSLSC............................Washington, DCSpecial AssistantBetty S. DysonGSSC14..................Washington, DCStaff AssistantPaula A. ElsberryGSSC11..................
```
EX-10.23




 Exhibit 10.23 

2018 Executive Bonus Plan 

In December 2017, our board of directors adopted an Executive Bonus Plan for 2018, which we refer to as the 2018 Bonus Plan. Our named
executive officers are participants in the 2018 Bonus Plan. The 2018 Bonus Plan provides for non-equity incentive compensation based upon the combined achievement of billings and free cash flow targets in 2018, which we refer to as the financial
goal. 
 The threshold level of achievement of the financial goal is at least 84.44%. If we achieve less than 84.44% of the financial goal,
no participant in the 2018 Bonus Plan will receive any portion of the target incentive. If we achieve 84.44% of the financial goal, participants will receive 50% of the target incentive. For achievement of the financial goal between the threshold
and target, the overall incentive payment scales linearly between 50% and 100%. For achievement of the financial goal between the target and 115.56% of the financial goal, the overall incentive payment scales linearly between 100% and 200%. The
maximum level of achievement of the financial goal is 115.56%. If we fail to achieve a minimum target for billings or free cash flow, the maximum target incentive will be 50%, even if the overall level of achievement of the financial goal is greater
than the threshold. 
 All bonuses under the 2018 Bonus Plan are subject to the participant maintaining minimum performance standards, as
determined by us, and remaining employed through the date a bonus is paid out.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2716 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2716

To amend title 18, United States Code, impose penalties for failing to 
report, within a reasonable amount of time, the disappearance or death 
                  of a child, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

  Mr. Kissell (for himself, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Smith of Washington) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, impose penalties for failing to 
report, within a reasonable amount of time, the disappearance or death 
                  of a child, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Caylee Anthony Caregiver 
Responsibility Act of 2011'' or as the ``Caylee's Law of 2011''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after section 1038 the following:
``Sec. 1038A. Failure to report a missing or dead child
    ``(a) Offenses.--
            ``(1) Failure to report missing child.--Whoever, being a 
        parent of a child who has been missing for more than 24 hours, 
        fails to report that the child is missing to the appropriate 
        authorities and travels in interstate or foreign commerce or 
        acts within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
        of the United States in committing the offense, shall be fined 
        under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
        both.
            ``(2) Concealment of dead child.--Whoever, being a parent 
        of a child who has been dead for more than 1 hour, fails to 
        report that death to the appropriate authorities and travels in 
        interstate or foreign commerce or acts within the special 
        maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States in 
        committing the offense, shall be fined under this title or 
        imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Parent.--The term `parent' means a parent, legal 
        guardian, or other person with custody of a child.
            ``(2) Child.--The term `child' means a person under the age 
        of 12 years.''.

SEC. 3. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting after the item regarding section 1038 the 
following:

``1038A. Failure to report a missing or dead child.''.
                                 <all>
```
1997

1 Indeed, in Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 375 (1921), the Court, albeit in dictum, observed that, unless the inference was drawn that ratification must occur

within some reasonable time of proposal, ‘‘four amendments proposed long ago—two

in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861—are still pending and in a situation where

their ratification in some of the States many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more

States to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite

untenable.’’ (Emphasis supplied). 2 A comprehensive, scholarly treatment of the background, development, failure,

and subsequent success of this amendment is Bernstein, The Sleeper Wakes: The

History and Legacy of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, 61 FORD. L. REV. 497 (1992).

A briefer account is The Congressional Pay Amendment, 16 Ops. of the Office of

Legal Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Justice 102, App. at 127–136 (1992) (prelim. pr.). 3The ratification issues are considered supra in the discussion of Article V. 4 In the only case to date brought under the Amendment, the parties did not

raise the question of the validity of its ratification; the court refused to consider the

issue raised by an amicus. Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F.Supp. 138, 139 (D.D.C.

1992). It is not at all clear the issue is justiciable. 5See supra, p. 126.

CONGRESSIONAL PAY LIMITATION

TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the

Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

REGULATING CONGRESSIONAL PAY

Referred to the state legislatures at the same time as those

proposals that eventually became the Bill of Rights, the congressional pay amendment had long been assumed to be dead.1 This

provision had its genesis, as did several others of the first amendments, in the petitions of the States ratifying the Constitution.2 It,

however, was ratified by only six States (out of the eleven needed),

and it was rejected by five States. Aside from the idiosyncratic action of the Ohio legislature in 1873, which ratified the proposal in

protest of a controversial pay increase adopted by Congress, the

pay limitation provision lay dormant until the 1980s. Then, an aide

to a Texas legislator discovered the proposal and began a crusade

that culminated some ten years later in its proclaimed ratification.3

Now that the provision is apparently a part of the Constitution,4 it will likely play a minor role. What it commands was already statutorily prescribed, and, at most, it may have implications

for automatic cost-of-living increases in pay for Members of Congress.5
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 8, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00673

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.T. , a Child

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- EM5

- 01625

Honorable Marisa Flores , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on November 8 , 2023

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of November, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.1      LETTER TO COMMISSIONER REGARDING AUDIT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.

         Re:    Audit by Arthur Andersen LLP
                ----------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Worldport Communications, Inc. has engaged Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur
Andersen") as its independent public accountants. Arthur Andersen has
represented to Worldport Communications, Inc. that the audits performed by
Arthur Andersen on behalf of Worldport Communications, Inc. were subject to
Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing
practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity
of Arthur Andersen personnel working on audits, availability of national office
consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audits.

Sincerely,

/S/   KATHLEEN A. COTE
----------------------

Kathleen A. Cote
Chief Executive Officer

March 27, 2002
```

[Constitution of the United States of America:  Analysis, and Interpretation - 1992 Edition ]
[Amendments to the Constitution]
[Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers ]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 1195]]

 

                           QUARTERING SOLDIERS

                               __________

 
                             THIRD AMENDMENT

  No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without 
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be 
prescribed by law.

        There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, 
which was obviously one guarantee of the preference for the civilian 
over the military.\1\

        \1\In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 
F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd. 
per curiam, 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983), there has been no judicial 
explication at all.
```
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Panama Canal Commission]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSIONLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpiresWashington, DCChairman, Board of DirectorsJoe R. ReederWCPAS............................Washington, DCMember, Board of DirectorsMarkos K. MarinakisEXPASV..................Washington, DCMember, Board of DirectorsAlbert H. NahmadEXPASV..................Washington, DCMember, Board of DirectorsClifford B. O'HaraEXPASV..................Washington, DCMember, Board of DirectorsVincent RyanEXPASV..................Balboa, Panama
            Member, Board of DirectorsFernando CardozeEXPAV..................Balboa, Panama
            Member, Board of DirectorsEmanuel Gonzalez-RevillaEXPAV..................Balboa, Panama
            Member, Board of DirectorsMoises D. MizrachiEXPAV..................Balboa, Panama
            Member, Board of DirectorsJorge E. RitterEXPAV..................Balboa, Panama
            AdministratorAlberto Aleman ZubietaEXPASIV..................Balboa, Panama
            Deputy AdministratorJoseph W. CornelisonEXPAIV..................Washington, DCAssistant to the Chairman and SecretaryJohn A. MillsOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Chief Financial OfficerNorbert E. KraegelOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Personnel DirectorGeorge A. MercierOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            General CounselJohn L. Haines, Jr.OTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Deputy General Counsel/Procurement ExecutiveTheodore G. LucasOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Deputy General CounselAlvaro A. CabalOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, General Services BureauRene Van HoordeOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Office of Executive PlanningRichard A. WainioOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Office of Executive Administration and Transition Coord.James E. FerraraOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Marine BureauGeorge T. HullOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Office of Public AffairsWillie K. FriarOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Engineering and Construction BureauNuman H. VasquezOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            OmbudsmanWilliam S. HinkleOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Office of Industrial RelationsMichael N. StephensonOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Director, Office of Equal OpportunityTilcia R. McTaggartOTXS............................Balboa, Panama
            Inspector GeneralPeter A. LiehrOTXS............................
```
Order entered January 30 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00869
- CV
RODNEY SHARP AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellant
V. WOODRIDGE PROPERTIES COMPANY LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 13
- 00238
- C 

### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By order dated January 17, 2014, the Court advised appellants that the Court would submit this appeal without a reporter’s record upon receivi ng verification either that (1) no request for the record has been made or (2) appellant is not indigent and has not paid for the reporter’s record. By letter received by the Court on January 28, 2014, Janet E. Wright, Court Reporter of Dallas County Cour t at Law No. 3, advised the Court that she had not received a request for the reporter’s record from appellants

. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS this case submitted without the reporter’s record. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this order, appellant shall file their brief. We notifyappellants that failure to file a brief in this case will result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exhibit 12.1****COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                   **Three Months Ended**  **Nine Months Ended**   **September 30,**  **September 30,**   **2006**  **2005**  **2006**  **2005**   (in thousands, except ratios) **Fixed Charges:**                Gross interest expense $6,173  $5,898  $24,000  $16,943 Interest portion of rent expense  57   48   175   144                 6,230   5,946   24,175   17,087                  **Earnings:**                Income before taxes  52,650   12,793   145,405   137,077 Plus: fixed charges  6,230   5,946   24,175   17,087 Less: capitalized interest  993   2,357   3,648   6,772                $57,887  $16,382  $165,932  $147,392                  **Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**  9.3x   2.8x   6.9x   8.6x 
-44-
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3087 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3087

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
  depreciation classification of motorsports entertainment complexes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2011

Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Berkley, Mr. 
   Mica, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. 
Walberg, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Westmoreland, 
 Mr. Hurt, Mr. Posey, and Mr. Manzullo) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
  depreciation classification of motorsports entertainment complexes.

    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 ``Motorsports Fairness and Permanency 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. 7-YEAR CLASS LIFE FOR MOTORSPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX 
              FACILITIES MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (15) of section 168(i) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```