alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 91-4255

___________

KENNETH E. WILDBUR, SR., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

ARCO CHEMICAL CO., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

___________________________________________________________________

(December 7, 1992)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion 10/12/92, 5th Cir. 1992, 974 F.2d 631)

Before KING and WIENER, Circuit Judges, and LAKE*, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this

panel or Judge in regular active service on the Court having

requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Although we have denied rehearing, we write to clarify our

opinion in two respects, neither of which is material to the

_______________

* District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.
 

1 The sentence deleted read as follows:

An eligible employee could elect to receive either

enhanced retirement benefits under section 35 of

the ARRP or the special severance benefits provided

by Schedule M of the STAP, but not both.

-2-

\Wildbur.sup

outcome of our decision. The parties agree that the court did not

fully describe the relationship between section 35 of the ARRP and

the special severance benefits under Schedule M of the STAP. We

agree and modify the October 12, 1992, opinion by deleting the

sentence that begins at the end of 974 F.2d page 633 and substituting instead the following sentence: 

Employees eligible for Section 35 benefits had

the option of choosing between enhanced ARRP

retirement benefits plus a reduced special

payment under the STAP or regular severance

payments under the STAP with no enhanced ARRP

retirement benefits.1

Plaintiffs argue that our opinion fails to expressly state

that the district court can consider remanded facts to the

administrator, that is, facts not originally considered by the ARRP

administrator but considered by the administrator after the district court remanded plaintiffs' claims to the administrator for

further consideration. The remands by the district court to the

ARRP administrator were by agreement of the parties, and neither

party complained on appeal of any of the orders of the district

court remanding plaintiffs' claims for further consideration by the

ARRP administrator. Since new facts were presented to the administrator by agreement of the parties, the district court is to give
-3-

\Wildbur.sup

these remanded facts the same consideration it is to give to facts

initially considered by the ARRP administrator. Part III of our

opinion explains the analytical framework for the district court's

consideration of both original and remanded facts.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 275]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2988]]

Public Law 113-275
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to 
      repeal a special rule for the State of Alaska, and for other 
             purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2014 -  [S. 1474]>> 

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

REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF ALASKA.

    Section 910 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 
2013 (18 U.S.C. 2265 note; Public Law 113-4) is repealed.

    Approved December 18, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1474:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113-260 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 11, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2007045EN.01000301.xml

| 28.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 February 2007

(2007/C 45/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3230 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67370 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2460 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6183 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,32 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0590 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5794 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,463 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 254,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7044 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9128 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3882 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,465 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8566 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6695 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5359 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3384 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8735 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0182 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 242,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2420 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3502 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 029,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6245 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,769 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,5570 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,114 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3230

JPY

Japanese yen

157,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67370

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2460

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6183

ISK

Iceland króna

87,32

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0590

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5794

CZK

Czech koruna

28,463

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

254,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7044

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9128

RON

Romanian leu

3,3882

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,465

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8566

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6695

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5359

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3384

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8735

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0182

KRW

South Korean won

1 242,16

ZAR

South African rand

9,4875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2420

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3502

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 029,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6245

PHP

Philippine peso

63,769

RUB

Russian rouble

34,5570

THB

Thai baht

45,114

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
**Exhibit 10b**

 

**IndependentAuditors’ Consent**

 

To the Executive Board andSupervisory Board of ARCADIS NV

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 relating the ARCADISG&M, Inc. 2002 Officer Stock Purchase Plan/2001 Long Term Incentive ShareOption Plan of our report dated March 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of ARCADIS NV as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, whichreport appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ARCADISNV.

 

De Meern, the Netherlands, June12, 2003

 

KPMG Accountants N.V.

 

1

----
Exhibit


Exhibit 10.10


WHITE MOUNTAINS ANNUAL BONUS PROGRAM


Set forth below is a summary of the White Mountains Annual Bonus Program:


OVERVIEW


The White Mountains Annual Bonus Program (the “Program”) is an integral part of the total compensation program for employees of White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. (“White Mountains”) and certain of its subsidiaries. The Program is overseen by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of White Mountains (the “Compensation Committee”).  At the end of each year, separate bonus pools are established for the non-investment personnel and the investment personnel based on performance.  In general, the bonus pool may range from 0% to 200% of the target.  


ANNUAL BONUS POOL DETERMINATION


For non-investment personnel, the size of the annual bonus pool at target is the sum of the individual target bonuses for participants in the program.  For senior executives, the individual target typically is 75% of salary; more junior personnel receive progressively lower targets.  The annual bonus pool can range from 0% to 200% of target.  The bonus pool payout percentage is determined by the Compensation Committee using its judgment.  


For investment personnel, the size of the annual bonus pool at target is established in the same manner as for non-investment personnel.  The most senior investment executives typically have an individual target of 125% of salary; more junior investment personnel receive progressively lower targets.  The annual bonus pool can range from 0% to 200% of target.  The bonus pool payout percentage is determined by the Compensation Committee using its judgment.  In determining the bonus pool payout percentage for investment personnel, the Compensation Committee considers the following factors, among others: absolute level of investment results, investment performance as compared to a range of relevant benchmarks, peer company investment results, and corporate circumstances and their effect on pure investment performance.  


INDIVIDUAL AWARDS


Individual bonuses can vary widely around the pool average based on individual performance and no cap (other than the size of the pool) applies to any single individual.  


A limited number of special bonuses may be awarded in any year to recognize successful individual results without regard to the aggregate size of an annual bonus pool.


PROGRAM PARTICIPATION FOR NEW HIRES


Annual bonuses of those eligible employees hired during the year are typically pro-rated based on date of hire.


CLAWBACK POLICY
In 2010, White Mountains adopted a clawback policy applicable to bonuses.  If White Mountains is required to restate any financial statement included in an SEC filing as a result of an employee’s misconduct, the Board may, without prejudice to any other remedies available, seek reimbursement of any bonus received by such person that relates in whole or in part to any period for which such financial statements were restated.  If the misconduct was fraud, then in addition to other actions, the Board mandatorily will seek such reimbursement.
### §278c. Acquisition of land for field sites

To the extent that funds are specifically appropriated therefor, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to acquire land for such field sites as are necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of the activities authorized herein.

(Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 872, §13, as added Pub. L. 85–890, §1, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1711.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

"Herein", referred to in text, refers to act Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 872, which is classified generally to this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 13 of act Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 872, as added July 22, 1950, ch. 486, §2, 64 Stat. 373, related to acceptance of gifts and bequests, prior to repeal by act Aug. 3, 1956. See sections 1522 and 1523 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Montgomery, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:



|By: | /s/DAVID W. MONTGOMERYDavid W. Montgomery
Chief Financial Officer | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | 

Date:
November 14, 2003

---

QuickLinks
# C_2011186EN.01002501.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2011 — Flaco Geräte v OHIM — Delgado Sámchez (FLACO)

(Case T-74/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FLACO - Earlier national word mark FLACO - Relative ground for refusal - Identical goods - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2011/C 186/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Flaco Geräte GmbH (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jesús Delgado Sánchez (Socuellamos, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 November 2009 (Case R 86/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Jesús Delgado Sánchez and Flaco Geräte GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Flaco-Geräte GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Flaco-Geräte GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ JOHN G. DUFFYJohn G. DuffyChief Executive Officer 
 *
    
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as
a separate disclosure document.
#### § 1308.34 Record on appeal.

Except as otherwise provided in this part, the appeal shall be decided on the basis of the record on appeal, which consists of the notice of appeal, the claim, any notice of election under § 1308.35 or § 1308.36, orders entered during the proceeding, admissions, transcripts of hearings, hearing exhibits and stipulations on file, all other documents admitted in evidence, and all briefs submitted by the parties.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2947]]

Public Law 113-269
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To modify certain provisions relating to the Propane Education and 
        Research Council. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2014 -  [H.R. 5705]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Propane 
Education and Research Enhancement Act of 2014.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 15 USC 6401 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Propane Education and Research 
Enhancement Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PROPANE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 
                    COUNCIL.

    (a) Functions of Propane Education and Research Council.--Section 
5(f) of the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 
6404(f)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``to train 
propane distributors and consumers in strategies to mitigate negative 
effects of future propane price spikes,'' after ``to enhance consumer 
and employee safety and training,''.
    (b) Market Survey and Consumer Protection Price Analysis.--Section 
9(a) of the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 
6408(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``only data 
provided by the Energy Information Administration'' and inserting ``the 
refiner price to end users of consumer grade propane, as published by 
the Energy Information Administration''.

    Approved December 18, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5705:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Dec. 9, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 10, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit 10.3







 





Compensation of Brigitte Rousseau


 


	Annual Base Salary: 	 	$148,000, subject to increase at the discretion of the Board of Directors.
	 	 	 
	Bonus:	 	Ms. Rousseau is entitled to receive one or more bonuses, subject to the discretion of the Board of Directors.
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as a director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Philip Fok,
Michael Grady, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at San Jose, California,
as of the date set forth below.



			Signature:	S/ Heinz K. Fridrich

			Type or Print Name:	Heinz K. Fridrich

			Dated: 	March 12, 2003






Witness:

Signature:	S/ Nitaya Yamamoto


Type or Print Name:	Nitaya Yamamoto


Dated: March 12, 2003
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 

unrelated business taxable income by amount of certain fringe benefit 

expenses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the increase in unrelated business taxable income by 

amount of certain fringe benefit expenses. 

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 ‘‘Stop the Tax Hike 

5 on Charities and Places of Worship Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 501 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF UNRELATED BUSINESS 

2 TAXABLE INCOME BY AMOUNT OF CERTAIN 

3 FRINGE BENEFITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 512(a) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph 

6 (7). 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall take effect as if included in section 

9 13703 of Public Law 115–97. 

10 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN TAX IMPOSED ON CORPORATIONS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(b) of the Internal Rev12 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘21 percent’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘22 percent’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin16 ning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
To the Shareholders and Trustees of
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital Growth Securities

                                                            (2)
               Report of Independent Accountants


To the Shareholders and Trustees of
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Municipal Income Opportunities Trust

In planning and performing our audit of the financial
statements of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Municipal Income
Opportunities Trust (the "Fund"), formerly Dean Witter
Municipal Income Opportunities Trust, for the year ended May
31, 1999, we considered its internal control, including
controls for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion
on the financial statements and to comply with the requirements
of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a
relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by
error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to
the financial statements being audited may occur and not be
detected within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we
noted no matters involving internal control and its operation,
including controls for safeguarding securities, that we
consider to be material weaknesses as defined above as of May
31, 1999.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Trustees of the Fund and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.




July 6, 1999
Wdesk | Exhibit


Exhibit 10.11




Annual Director Compensation
Annual Retainers:	
				
	Each non-employee director:
	$
	50,000
	


	Chairman of the Board
	125,000
	


	Chairperson of the Audit Committee:
	16,000
	


	Other Audit Committee Members:
	9,000
	


	Chairperson of the Compensation Committee:
	12,000
	


	Other Compensation Committee Members:
	6,000
	


	Chairperson of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee:
	8,000
	


	Other Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee Members:
	6,000
	


	Chairperson of the Finance Committee:
	8,000
	


	Other Finance Committee Members:
	6,000
	







All retainers are payable in cash, in four equal installments on the first day of each fiscal quarter. 


Meeting Fees:
Non-employee directors each receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended in person and are reimbursed for their expenses in attending such meetings. 


Equity Award:
Annually, each director shall receive a deferred stock award pursuant to the 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, consisting of the right to receive shares of Rent-A-Center common stock. The award shall be valued at $100,000 and be fully vested upon issuance. The shares covered by the award will be issued upon the termination of the director’s service as a member of the Board.