alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 10.23


                           SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS INC.
                     SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY'S
                ANNUAL EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM


SunGard Data Systems Inc. has an annual executive incentive compensation ("EIC")
program for its executive officers and other key management employees.  The
principal purpose of this program is to link a significant portion of annual
cash compensation to financial results and other goals, so as to reward
successful performance.

Each participant's EIC program contains certain financial and/or business goals
as targets. These targets are established at the beginning of each year and take
into account the Company's overall financial and business goals for the year.
The EIC program for corporate officers is based upon targeted rates of increase
in the Company's earnings per share over the previous year or budgeted operating
income and average number of days sales outstanding in accounts receivable of
the business units that report to the officer. Sometimes, there are additional
performance goals specific to the officer's function. For other key management
employees, the EIC program targets are based upon financial and/or business
goals related to the business units they manage and, sometimes, additional
performance goals specific to their individual functions.

Generally, the EIC programs contain an incentive compensation amount related to
each target.  If the target is achieved, then the related incentive compensation
amount is earned.  For most financial goals, there are three to four designated
targets.  If the actual result is less than the minimum target, then no
incentive amount is earned.  If the actual result is between two targets, then
the incentive amount earned is calculated by interpolation.  If the actual
result is more than the maximum target, then the incentive amount earned is
equal to the amount related to the maximum target plus, in some cases, an
additional incentive amount based upon the extent to which the maximum target
was exceeded.
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)
To: "citymanager@cityofironmountain.com" ; "thowen58@hotmail.com" ; "info@cityofkingsford.com" ; "admin@ci.brainerd.mn.us" ; "jeffwig@brainerdairport.com" ; "pwussow@ci.brainerd.mn.us" ; "boba@ci.international-falls.mn.us" ; "thor@einarsonsflying.com" ; "sabaratono@midco.net" ; "mayor@rhinelandercityhall.org" ; jbrauer@fly-rhi.org
Cc: Carrier, SkyWest, Brad Rawson (brad.rawson@skywest.com) ; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Subject: EAS at Iron Mountain/Kingsford, MI, International Falls & Brainerd, MN, and Rhinelander, WI - Request for Comments - Due November 5, 2014
Date: Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:53:34 AM
Attachments: SkyWestEASBid2015-2017BRDIMTINLRHI.pdf

All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Iron Mountain/Kingsford, MI, International Falls & Brainerd, MN, and Rhinelander, WI, and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. On August 14, 2014, the Department issued Order 2014-8-10 soliciting proposals from carriers to provide EAS at Iron Mountain/Kingsford, International Falls, Brainerd, and Rhinelander, for a new contract period beginning February 1, 2015. In response to that Order, we received one proposal, from SkyWest Airlines (SkyWest), the incumbent carrier.

I have attached a copy of the proposal to this email. The proposal can also be accessed online through the Federal Dockets Management System at www.regulations.gov

. For your convenience, I will briefly summarize the proposals below.

SkyWest proposes to provide Rhinelander with 14 nonstop round trips per week. Iron Mountain would receive 13 round trips per week; six on a nonstop basis and seven one-stops over Rhinelander. International Falls would receive 12 round trips per week; seven non-stops and five one-stops over Hibbing. Finally, Brainerd would receive 12 nonstop round trips per week. All service would be provided to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) on 50-seat CRJ200 regional jet aircraft. For its service, SkyWest would require a combined annual subsidy of $8,889,650.

We request that you review the proposal carefully and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than November 5, 2014. We will carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision.

Please send your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to (202) 366-7638. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact A.J. Muldoon of my staff at albert.muldoon@dot.gov or (202) 366-1058.

Sincerely,

Kevin D. Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 Office of Aviation Analysis
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-69 | August 19, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be

regarded as precedent or cited before any

court except for the purpose of establishing

the defense of res judicata, collateral

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

O’Shun Untha Grace

Indiana State Prison

Michigan City, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis,Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

O’Shun Untha Grace,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 19, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1601-CR-69

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-9701-PC-3520

Crone, Judge.

[1] After a jury trial, O’Shun Untha Grace was sentenced to 115 years for murder,

three counts of class A felony robbery, and one count of class A felony
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-69 | August 19, 2016 Page 2 of 3

conspiracy to commit robbery. On direct appeal, our supreme court reversed

one of the robbery convictions, reduced the remaining robbery convictions and

the conspiracy conviction to class B felonies, and remanded with instructions

“to impose a total executed sentence of 85 years (concurrent sentences of fully

enhanced 20 years for conspiracy to commit robbery and two counts of robbery

to be served consecutive to a fully enhanced 65 year term for murder).” Grace v.

State, 731 N.E.2d 442, 446 (Ind. 2000).

[2] In December 2015, Grace filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence, which

does not appear in the record before us. The trial court denied the motion.

Grace now appeals, claiming that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum

for an episode of criminal conduct and violates several provisions of the U.S.

Constitution. Our supreme court has held that

a motion to correct sentence may only be used to correct

sentencing errors that are clear from the face of the judgment

imposing the sentence in light of the statutory authority. Claims

that require consideration of the proceedings before, during, or

after trial may not be presented by way of a motion to correct

sentence.

Robinson v. State, 805 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind. 2004). Grace’s claims require

consideration of matters outside the face of the sentencing judgment and

therefore are inappropriate for a motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Consequently, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1601-CR-69 | August 19, 2016 Page 3 of 3

[3] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
### §833n. Use of deposits by allottees; nontaxability of lands

Funds deposited to the credit of allottees, their heirs, or devisees may be used, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, for the acquisition of other lands and improvements, or the relocation of existing improvements or construction of new improvements on the lands so acquired for the allottees or heirs whose lands and improvements are acquired under the provisions of sections 833l to 833p of this title. Lands so acquired shall be held in the same status as those from which the funds were derived, and shall be nontaxable until otherwise provided by Congress.

(Apr. 23, 1946, ch. 199, §3, 60 Stat. 118.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of act May 18, 1938, which comprises this chapter.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
Exhibit 10.1

     

    


    AMENDMENT
      TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

    


    This
      Amendment (“Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of October 25 by and
      between Robert R. Buck (“Executive”) and Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. d/b/a
      Beacon Sales Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

    


    RECITALS

    


    A. The
      Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated
      as
      of October 20, 2003, as amended on July 30, 2004 and February 15, 2006 (the
      “Employment Agreement”).

    


    B. The
      parties hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement, on the terms set forth
      herein. 

    


    AGREEMENTS

    


    The
      parties hereto agree as follows: 

    


    1. Employment
      Term.
      The
      Initial term of the Employment Agreement is hereby extended until November
      30,
      2008.

    


    2. Compensation.
      Section
      3(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to insert the following
      after
      the first sentence of Section 3(b):

    


    “For
      the
      Company’s fiscal year 2008, the Company shall pay to Executive a Bases Salary
      for all services rendered by Executive under this Agreement of $550,000 per
      year
      (Prorated for any partial year).” 

    


    3. The
      parties hereby ratify and confirm, in all respects, the Employment Agreement,
      as
      amended by this Amendment.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
      date
      first written above.

     

    
      	 	
              BEACON
                SALES ACQUISITION, INC.

            	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
              By:
                

            	
              /s/
                Ross D. Cooper

            	 
	 	
               

            	
              Ross
                D. Cooper, Senior Vice President, General Counsel &
                Secretary

            	 


    

     

    
      	 	
              EXECUTIVE

            	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              /s/
                Robert R. Buck

            	 
	 	
              Robert
                R. Buck
EGU MACT RIA -- Interagency comments on Executive Summary 

 12/14/2011 04:19 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi Bob, 

Attached are interagency comments on the RIA Executive Summary. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

Executive Summary_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.docx
### §2276. Breaking and entering vessel

Whoever, upon the high seas or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, breaks or enters any vessel with intent to commit any felony, or maliciously cuts, spoils, or destroys any cordage, cable, buoys, buoy rope, head fast, or other fast, fixed to the anchor or moorings belonging to any vessel, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 804; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §490 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §299, 35 Stat. 1147).

Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the alternative.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".
# EUR-Lex - 52004AP0081 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004AP0081

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (COM(2004)0710 — C6-0170/2004 — 2004/0253(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 226 E , 15/09/2005 P. 0041 - 0041 *

P6_TA(2004)0081

Support schemes for farmers/Milk and milk products *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (COM(2004)0710 — C6-0170/2004 — 2004/0253(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2004)0710) [1],

- having regard to Article 37(2), third subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0170/2004),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture (A6-0036/2004),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
### §90d–5. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter, but not more than $4,500,000 shall be appropriated for the acquisition of lands or interest in lands.

(Pub. L. 90–544, title V, §506, Oct. 2, 1968, 82 Stat. 930; Pub. L. 94–578, title I, §101(9), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2732.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–578 substituted "$4,500,000" for "$3,500,000".
§ 34.23 Exclusions from garnishment. ( a ) We do not garnish your wages if we have credible evidence that you— ( 1 ) Were involuntarily separated from employment; and
( 2 ) Have not yet been reemployed continuously for at least 12 months.
( b ) You have the burden of informing us of the circumstances surrounding an involuntary separation from employment.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3720D)
Exhibit 32
                    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 Reflect Scientific, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), we, Kim Boyce, President and director, and Kevin Cooksy,
Secretary/Treasurer 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 08/10/05                           /s/Kim Boyce
       --------                          ---------------------------
                                         Kim Boyce
                                         President and director

Dated: 08/10/05                          /s/Kevin Cooksy
      ---------                          ---------------------------
                                         Kevin Cooksy
                                         Secretary/Treasurer
§ 343a.2 Return or replacement of surrendered certificate of naturalization or citizenship. A certificate of naturalization or citizenship which is contained in a USCIS file, and which was surrendered on a finding that loss of nationality occurred directly or through a parent as a result of the application of any of the following sections of law may, upon request, be returned to the person to whom it was originally issued, notwithstanding the fact that he or she has since been naturalized or repatriated in the United States or abroad: ( a ) Section 404 (b) or (c) of the Nationality Act of 1940;
( b ) Section 352 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was invalidated by *Schneider* v. *Rusk,* 377 U.S. 163;
( c ) Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940;
( d ) Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was invalidated by *Afroyim* v. *Rusk,* 387 U.S. 253;
( e ) Section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
( f ) Section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act relative to persons born after May 24, 1934, which was invalidated by amendment to section 301(b) on October 27, 1972, Public Law 92-584.
If, after having been surrendered to the Department of State or to USCIS, the certificate was lost, mutilated, or destroyed as a result of action by USCIS or that Department, a replacement certificate may be issued in the name shown in the surrendered certificate without fee and without requiring the submission of an application. A surrendered certificate shall not be regarded as mutilated and a replacement shall not be issued solely because of holes made in it to accommodate a fastener, unless the citizen declines to accept the return of the surrendered certificate in that condition and insists upon issuance of a replacement. When it is desired that the replacement certificate be furnished in a name other than the one shown in the surrendered certificate, the regular application procedure with payment of fee must be followed. [51 FR 35629, Oct. 7, 1986, as amended at 76 FR 53805, Aug. 29, 2011]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6785

WILLIE LEE CARTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the

State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-99-1627)

Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Lee Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Lee Carter appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Dep’t of Corr., No. CA-99-1627 (D.S.C.

Mar. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
----

(2004/C 88 E/0137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3045/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Child labour

I welcome the commitment given by Commissioner Neilson, in his reply to my Oral Question H-0405/03 (1), to consider possible support for the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, and the proposed inclusion of child labour in the tentative list of joint objectives/priorities between the Commission and the ILO in the framework of the proposed EC/ILO Strategic Partnership.

Could the Commission outline what progress has been made to date and indicate how it proposes to make sufficient funds available to allow for concrete follow-up activities in this area?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The Commission is finalising for the end of 2003 a Strategic Partnership with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in the field of development co-operation. A strategic approach to the elimination of child labour through the promotion of primary education has been identified as the first priority to be developed in the framework of the Partnership.

This strategy intends to address the issue of education in the context of the fight against child labour. This is particularly relevant with respect to the efforts made by the Commission within the Education for All agenda. The primary objective of Community policy on education and training, achieving education for all in line with the millennium development goals, cannot be accomplished without addressing the problems of school aged children who are working.

In this context it could be useful to identify the root causes of this phenomenon, that is to say the gap between children's rights in law and the reality in which they live on a daily basis. This could be addressed by timely targeted actions to help destitute families and support them through community networks at local level.

The strategy on child labour and education will address, in this pilot phase, specifically the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) regional dimension, and the Commission envisages drawing on the European Development Fund allocation for Intra-ACP co-operation.

The operational partner will be the ILO International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). This strategic action would be additional to the existing ILO/IPEC programme. The funding will focus on actions, which are not part of the regular base activities of ILO/IPEC. First, while IPEC interventions in broad terms are most advanced on Asia and Latin America, the Commission's funding will allow to reinforce targeted actions towards the ACP countries. Accumulated experience and best practices from Asia and Latin America will be used to promote targeted action in ACP countries to allow more children subject to forced labour to access and complete their primary schooling. Secondly, this funding will support targeted initiatives in education.

----

(1)  Oral answer, 1.7.2003.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MASSAI SHAWN DICKEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 265 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.