alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 100A—CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT**

Sec.
7421.
Definitions.
7422.
No regulatory authority.
7423.
No additional funds authorized.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

7431.
Federal cybersecurity research and development.
7432.
National cybersecurity challenges.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

7441.
Cybersecurity competitions and challenges.
7442.
Federal Cyber Scholarship-for-Service Program.
7443.
National cybersecurity awareness and education program.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—CYBERSECURITY AWARENESS AND PREPAREDNESS

7451.
Transferred.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—ADVANCEMENT OF CYBERSECURITY TECHNICAL STANDARDS

7461.
Definitions.
7462.
International cybersecurity technical standards.
7463.
Cloud computing strategy.
7464.
Identity management research and development.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.33-89324 on Form S-8, and Nos. 33-96766, 333-46574, 333-46578, 333-53720 and 333-76028 on Form S-3 of SangStat Medical Corporation of our report datedFebruary 10, 2003 (which report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets), appearing in this Report on Form 10-K of SangStatMedical Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, CaliforniaMarch 24, 2003
# C_2013225EN.01001901.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

(Case C-653/11) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Supply of advertising and loan broking services - Exemptions - Economic and commercial reality of the transactions - Abusive practices - Transactions with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage)

2013/C 225/31

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

Applicant:

Defendant: Paul Newey, trading under the business name Ocean Finance

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal — Interpretation of Article 9(2)(e) and Article 13B(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of supplies of loan broking services — Loan broking activities directed at the United Kingdom by a company established in Jersey calling on the services of a person established in the United Kingdom — Attribution of the activities to the company established in Jersey or to the person established in the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Contractual terms, even though they constitute a factor to be taken into consideration, are not decisive for the purposes of identifying the supplier and the recipient of a ‘supply of services’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 6(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000. They may in particular be disregarded if it becomes apparent that they do not reflect economic and commercial reality, but constitute a wholly artificial arrangement which does not reflect economic reality and was set up with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

60) VI-B-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37 PM Sheet 60 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-B-11 

This document has been moved to IV-C-3 at the request of the project officer. 

It was incorrectly categorize originally. 

\
### SUBCHAPTER II–A—CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS
§ 343.1 Definitions. For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Complaint* means a filing challenging an existing rate or practice under section 13(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act.
( b ) *Protest* means a filing, under section 15(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, challenging a tariff publication.
[Order 561, 58 FR 58780, Nov. 4, 1993, as amended by Order 578, 60 FR 19505, Apr. 19, 1995]
Exhibit 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report  of Sunburst Acquisitions VI, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the period ending July 31,  2002  (the
"Report"), I,  Michael R. Quinn, Principal Executive Officer  and  Principal
Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.  Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of  2002,
that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Michael R. Quinn

-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
Date:
# C_2017392EN.01002702.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/27

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-104/10) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction in financial aid - RESIDER II programme - Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Action manifestly well founded))

(2017/C 392/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann, B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany is annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany is annulled.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
P.1 

OAR Box 1812 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

293) IV-C-6 

Docket Number: A » Gti 0* £%*& 

Printed 11/3/2008 10:13:06 AM Sheet 293 of 307 
P.2 

{/ro 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

4-66-0 3 

; !«.r. I- J iw 

Honorable Alfonse D'Amato 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator D'Amato: 

This letter is in response to your letter of February 23, 

1990 to William Reilly, regarding the finalizaton of on-highway 

diesel fuel regulations. In the letter, you urged EPA to 

finalize this rulemaking without any exemptions for small 

refiners, in order to maximize the environmental benefits of 

this action. 

We agree that this rulemaking will have very significant 

environmental benefits for areas such as New York City; thus 

we consider its promulgation a top priority. However, you were 

correct to note that we have been requested to consider 

providing an interim exemption for small refiners.' As I. am 

sure you are aware, we are required to fully consider the 

merits of all such requests raised during the comment period. 

This is especially true when dealing with issues as serious as 

the potential for regional fuel shortages as a result of our 

action. Thus, we must make our decision only after the merits 

of both sides of the issue are considered. As such, we will 

consider your comments very seriously in making our decision as 

to whether a small refiner exemption is 'justified. Thank you 

for sharing your thoughts with us. 

_,-,;«_;•! ir-vi- Oiv-..i .-- J D ' 

PiCh -RC O.VViLSON 

s 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources
# C_2013108EN.01001806.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/18

---

Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 14 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Anita Chieza v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-680/11) (1)

1

2013/C 108/42

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
### §2114. United States Deputy Marshals in Alaska

Commissioned officers may be appointed as United States Deputy Marshals in Alaska.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(c)(3), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4221.)
#### § 367.3990 Account 399, Other tangible property.

This account must include the cost of tangible service company property not provided for elsewhere.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20119

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

YSRAEL MUSTAFA-BERNABE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-245-4

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Ysrael Mustafa-Bernabe has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mustafa-Bernabe has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 07-20119 Document: 00511149332 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 20, 2015

d0513p

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2015

150200

GARY GAY and TAMMY GAY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 150200

COA: 315868

Clinton CC: 11-010896-CH

FANNIE MAE and EVERHOME

MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 26, 2014 

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.
#### § 292.311 Reinstatement of obligation to purchase.

At any time after the Commission makes a finding under §§ 292.309 and 292.310 relieving an electric utility of its obligation to purchase electric energy, a qualifying cogeneration facility, a qualifying small power production facility, a State agency, or any other affected person may apply to the Commission for an order reinstating the electric utility's obligation to purchase electric energy under this section. Such application shall set forth the factual basis upon which the application is based and describe why the conditions set forth in § 292.309(a), (b) or (c) are no longer met. After notice, including sufficient notice to potentially affected electric utilities, and opportunity for comment, the Commission shall issue an order within 90 days of such application reinstating the electric utility's obligation to purchase electric energy under this section if the Commission finds that the conditions set forth in § 292.309(a), (b), or (c) which relieved the obligation to purchase, are no longer met.

[Order 688, 71 FR 64372, Nov. 1, 2006]
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934








Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
      chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an
      officer of Mega Media Group, Inc. (“MMDA”), that, to his knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report of MMDA on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
      report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operation of MMDA. This written statement is being furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-QSB. A
      signed original of this statement has been provided to MMDA and will be retained
      by MMDA and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
















Date: December
                26, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Aleksandr
                ShvartsALEKSANDR
                SHVARTSChief
                Executive Officer





Date: December
                26, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Gennady
                PomeranetsGENNADY
                POMERANETS, CPAChief
                Financial Officer
§ 93.517 Swine from Canada. ( a ) *For purposes other than immediate slaughter.* Swine offered for importation from Canada for purposes other than immediate slaughter shall be accompanied by a certificate issued or endorsed by a salaried veterinarian of the Canadian Government showing that said swine have been inspected on the premises of origin immediately before the date of movement therefrom and found to be free of evidence of communicable disease and that, as far as it has been possible to determine, they were not exposed to any such disease during the preceding 60 days; in addition, the certificate shall show that no classical swine fever or swine plague has existed on the premises of origin or on adjoining premises for such 60 days.
( b ) *For immediate slaughter.* Swine for immediate slaughter may be imported from Canada without certification as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section but shall be subject to the provisions of §§ 93.507, 93.516, and 93.518.
[55 FR 34195, Aug. 2, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 62 FR 56012, 56020, Oct. 28, 1997; 68 FR 16938, Apr. 7, 2003]
### §715. Purpose of chapter

It is declared to be the policy of Congress to protect interstate and foreign commerce from the diversion and obstruction of, and the burden and harmful effect upon, such commerce caused by contraband oil as herein defined, and to encourage the conservation of deposits of crude oil situated within the United States.

(Feb. 22, 1935, ch. 18, §1, 49 Stat. 30.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Act Feb. 22, 1935, which is classified to this chapter, is popularly known as the "Hot Oil Act" and also as the "Connally Hot Oil Act".
§ 154.107 Currently effective rates. ( a ) This section of the tariff must present the currently effective rates and charges under each rate schedule.
( b ) All rates must be stated clearly in cents or dollars and cents per thermal unit. The unit of measure must be stated for each component of a rate.
( c ) A rate having more than one part must have each component set out separately under appropriate headings (e.g., “Reservation Charge,” “Usage Charge.”)
( d ) Where a component of a rate is adjusted pursuant to a mechanism approved under subpart E of this part, the adjustment must be stated in a separate column on the rate sheet or section.
( e ) Exception to paragraph (d) of this section. Where the rate component is an Annual Charge Adjustment surcharge approved by the Commission, the adjustment or surcharge may be stated in a footnote on the rate sheet or section.
( f ) A total rate, indicating the sum of the rate components under paragraph (c) of this section plus the adjustments under paragraph (d) of this section, must be shown in the last column at the end of a line for a rate, so that a reader can readily determine the separate components comprising the total rate for a service.
[Order 582, 60 FR 52996, Oct. 11, 1995, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57534, Oct. 3, 2008]
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.12


THE NEW HOME COMPANY INC. 
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The New Home Company Inc. (the “Board”) held February 23, 2016, the Board approved the following Non-Employee Director Compensation Program for payment of the Company’s non-employee directors (“Directors”).  The cash and equity compensation described below shall be paid or be made, as applicable, automatically and without further action of the Board.
Effective as of the Company’s 2016 fiscal year until amended, modified or terminated by the Board in the future at its sole discretion:


Cash Compensation


All annual retainers will be paid in cash quarterly in arrears promptly following the end of the applicable calendar quarter, but in no event more than thirty (30) days after the end of such quarter.  The Directors are entitled to receive annual retainers in the following amounts, pro-rated for any partial year of service:
	
						
	Director:
	 
	$
	45,000
	

	 

	Audit Committee:
	 
	$
	20,000
	

	 (Chair); $8,500 (Other Members)

	Compensation Committee:
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 (Chair); $6,000 (Other Members)

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 (Chair); $6,000 (Other Members)

	Executive Committee Member:
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 






Equity Compensation


Beginning with calendar year 2017, each Director who is serving on the Board as of the date of each annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders and who is re-elected for another year of service as a Director at such annual meeting shall be granted restricted stock units with a value of $60,000 on the date of the applicable annual shareholder meeting (the “Annual Grant”).


Each Annual Grant will vest in full on the earlier of (i) the date of the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders next following the applicable grant date (it being understood that the Annual Grant shall vest on the date of such annual meeting whether or not the Director is re-elected at such meeting, so long as the Director serves through such meeting) and (ii) the first anniversary of the applicable grant date, subject in each case to continued service.


The Annual Grants will be granted under and shall be subject to the terms and provisions of the Company’s 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan or any other applicable Company equity incentive plan then-maintained by the Company.
Other
The Company reimburses Directors for reasonable out-of-pocked expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties as directors, including without limitation travel expenses in connection with their attendance in-person at Board and committee meetings.  Each member of the Board that is an employee of the Company will not receive any compensation for their services as a director.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.14




Five9, Inc.
2016 Executive Bonus Plan
On February 18, 2016, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Five9, Inc. (the “Company”) approved performance targets for the year ending December 31, 2016 that will be used to determine the amount of cash bonus awards that may be earned, on a quarterly basis, by the Company’s Section 16 officers pursuant to the Company’s 2016 bonus program (the “2016 Bonus Program”).
Funding of the 2016 Bonus Program will be based upon the Company’s financial performance and each officer’s individual performance for each quarter in the year ending December 31, 2016, using a weighting of 75% for Company financial performance and 25% for individual performance for each executive officer other than the Chief Executive Officer and EVP, Sales & Business Development. The Chief Executive Officer’s bonus will be funded 100% based upon Company financial performance.  The EVP, Sales & Business Development’s bonus will be funded 60% based on sales commissions and 40% based on Company financial performance.  Financial performance will be based upon the Company’s achievement of predetermined revenue and adjusted EBITDA targets using a weighting of 80% for performance achieved against the revenue target and 20% for performance achieved against the adjusted EBITDA target. Achievement below 90% of the revenue target, or $400,000 below the adjusted EBITDA target, would result in no cash payout with respect to such target. Achievement up to 125% of the revenue target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 150% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the revenue target. Achievement up to $1,600,000 over the adjusted EBITDA target would result in increasing payouts up to a maximum payout of 180% of the portion of the target bonus allocated to the adjusted EBITDA target. In the event that the Company’s actual adjusted EBITDA is more than $400,000 below the adjusted EBITDA target, the maximum cash payout for achieving the revenue target will be 100% of the revenue target bonus.
Below are the annual target bonus levels under the 2016 Bonus Program for the Company’s listed Section 16 officers:
	
								
	Name
	 
	Annual
Target Bonus
(USD)
	 
	 
	Annual Target Bonus
as a Percentage of
Base Salary

	Michael Burkland
	 
	$
	320,000
	

	 
	 
	60%

	Barry Zwarenstein
	 
	$
	147,000
	

	 
	 
	40%

	Daniel Burkland
	 
	$
	247,000
	

	 
	 
	78%

	Scott Welch
	 
	$
	164,000
	

	 
	 
	50%

	Gaurav Passi
	 
	$
	140,000
	

	 
	 
	50%

	Michael Crane
	 
	$
	140,000
	

	 
	 
	50%