alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>



                                                                 Exhibit 10.61



             SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

         All of the members of the Board of Directors (each, a "Director" and
collectively, the "Board of Directors") of Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Company") are reimbursed for expenses in connection with attendance at the
Company's Board of Directors and committee meetings. Each non-employee Director,
other than Dr. Jurgen Drews, receives $20,000 per year in the form of equity of
the Company in consideration for serving on the Board of Directors and $1,500
for attendance at each Board of Directors meeting. Dr. Drews receives $60,000
per year plus a non-accountable expense allowance of $30,000 per year in
consideration for serving as chairman of the Board of Directors. The members of
the Company's Audit Committee (the "Audit Committee") also each receive $1,500
for each committee meeting attended in person. In addition, the chair of the
Audit Committee is paid an annual cash retainer fee of $7,500. The members of
each of the Company's Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and
Compensation Committee, except for Dr. Drews, each receive $1,000 for each
committee meeting attended in person. In the event that any of the meetings of
the Board of Directors or any committee thereof are held telephonically, each
Director who participates in such telephonic meeting is paid $500 per meeting so
long as the meeting lasts longer than thirty minutes.

         Our non-employee Directors are eligible to participate in our 2000
Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, which we sometimes refer
to as our "equity incentive plan." On October 1 of each year, each non-employee
Director receives an automatic grant of an option to purchase 10,000 shares of
our common stock. In addition, upon initial election to the Board of Directors,
each non-employee Director receives an automatic grant of an option to purchase
20,000 shares of our common stock, except for our chairman, Dr. Drews, who
received an initial grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common
stock. The stock options granted upon initial election and the stock options
granted annually become exercisable each quarter over a period of four years, so
long as the non-employee Director continues to serve on the Board of Directors.
The stock options have a term of ten years and an exercise price equal to the
closing price per share of our common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Stock
Market on the date of grant.
NRC’S YUCCA MOUNTAIN BOARD TO HOLD ORAL ARGUMENTS 

IN LAS VEGAS JANUARY 26-27 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Construction Authorization Board will convene 

Jan. 26-27 in Las Vegas, Nev., to hear oral arguments on a number of legal issues and to hold a 

case management conference concerning documents filed in the adjudicatory proceeding over 

the Department of Energy’s license application for a high-level radioactive waste repository at 

Yucca Mountain. 

 Oral arguments on Jan. 26 and, if necessary, Jan. 27 will concern several legal issues 

raised by the state of Nevada and the Nuclear Energy Institute. These issues center on DOE’s 

specific requirements to project environmental conditions at Yucca Mountain thousands of years 

in the future and the extent of several design conditions required by NRC regulations. 

 The case management conference on Jan. 27 will address concerns raised last month by 

the NRC’s administrator of the Licensing Support Network, an online database of documents 

supporting the license application, the NRC’s review, and the various challenges filed in the 

hearing. The administrator expressed concern about the availability of DOE’s thousands of 

documents on the network should the department decide to withdraw the license application. 

 Proceedings will be held at the NRC’s Las Vegas Hearing Facility, Pacific Enterprise 

Plaza, Building 1, 3250 Pepper Lane in Las Vegas, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time each 

day. Proceedings will be Webcast at these addresses: 

• January 26: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=65080 

• January 27: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=65081 

 Media wishing to cover the pre-hearing sessions are strongly encouraged to register in 

advance with NRC’s Office of Public Affairs in Rockville, Maryland, by calling (301) 415-8200. 

Pre-registration is essential for television media, as space inside the hearing room is limited. 

Photographers (video or still) will not be permitted to move around the hearing room while the 

board is in session. Board judges will not grant interviews. No interviews of other participants 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-014 January 14, 2010
shall be permitted inside the hearing facility. Two brochures on the Las Vegas Hearing Facility – 

one for media and one for the general public – will be available on the NRC’s Web site at this 

address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/. 

### 

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand. 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### §21010. Service of process

The corporation shall comply with the law on service of process of each State in which it is incorporated and each State in which it carries on activities.

(Added Pub. L. 105–354, §1(5)(A), Nov. 3, 1998, 112 Stat. 3244.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 21010 | 36 App.:5904. | Aug. 13, 1998, Pub. L. 105–231, §4, 112 Stat. 1531. |

Section

The words "each State in which it is incorporated" are substituted for "the State of Texas" for consistency in the revised title. The words "in furtherance of its corporate purposes" are omitted as unnecessary.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Maurice J. Sandor.

Motion granted unless appellant stipulates to vacate certificate of reasonable doubt and serve the printed case and place case on calendar so that same can be heard on April 13, 1915. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
```

NOT JUST IN RUSSIA

by Shawn Levsen
The high priority assigned to defense by the Soviet Union created thousands of
enterprises throughout the USSR with an abundance of talented personnel and
advanced technologies.  Today, these firms are often eager to work with Western
partners as they struggle to survive in a market economy.  Converting defense
enterprises can be difficult to work with, but U.S. firms are finding
opportunities--often with U.S. Government support.

One such company, Byelocorp Scientific, Inc. (BSI), will receive $3 million to
support conversion of a Kazakhstan rocket manufacturer to production of
appropriate civilian products, through the Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction  Program (CTR).  BSI will use the grant to support conversion of
the Gidromash enterprise of Almaty, Kazakhstan.  Historically a manufacturer of
anti-submarine missiles and rockets, Gidromash discontinued its military product
lines in 1994.  It already manufactures vacuum bottles for hot and cold beverages
and other metal consumer goods.   

BSI, along with its Italian subsidiary SUPCO, and Gidromash are in the process of
forming Byelkamit, a joint venture.  Byelkamit will build cryogenic tanks, pressure
vessels, valves, and related equipment for the petroleum and chemical industries. 
The joint venture's products will be marketed in Kazakhstan and other NIS
countries, Europe, and India, with eventual expansion foreseen into other Asian
markets.   Gidromash, which previously employed 1,400, is 90 percent owned by
the Kazakhstan National Joint-Stock Company KORGAU.  Through a sell-off of
shares, private investors will eventually own 60 percent of the enterprise. 
Byelkamit operations will begin this summer and occupy all of  Gidromash's
available workspace.  The joint-venture plans to include 70 production workers and
technicians, and seven expatriate BSI-SUPCO engineer/supervisors.  The total
project cost will be more than $6 million.  Of this amount, $3 million will come
from CTR, with the remainder represented by  BSI's contribution of equipment and
technology. 

BSI is a pioneer in commercializing NIS defense technologies.  Its first defense
industry project, in 1992, was the conversion of the Byelorussian Optical and
Mechanical Amalgamation (BelOMA) in Minsk.  The resulting joint venture,
BelOMA-BSI, now produces consumer optics, high-quality lenses, and lens
assemblies.  BSI supports research by Belarussian scientists in the development
and commercialization of magnetorheological fluids for the fine-polishing of optical
products.  BSI also acts as commercial agent and partner of the A.V. Luikov Heat
and Mass Transfer Institute and the Powder Metallurgy Institute of Belarus in
various projects.

Other recent recipients of CTR grants include Kras Corporation of Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania ($4 million),  and Allen & Associates International of Washington, DC
($2.7 million).  For more information on defense conversion opportunities in the
NIS, call BISNIS at (202) 482-4655. 
Shawn Levsen covers defense conversion for BISNIS.
```
§ 25.18 Authority of the ALJ. ( a ) The ALJ shall conduct a fair and impartial hearing, avoid delay, maintain order, and assure that a record of the proceeding is made.
( b ) The ALJ has the authority to— ( 1 ) Set and change the date, time, and place of the hearing upon reasonable notice to the parties;
( 2 ) Continue or recess the hearing in whole or in part for a reasonable period of time;
( 3 ) Hold conferences to identify or simplify the issues, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding;
( 4 ) Administer oaths and affirmations;
( 5 ) Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents at depositions or at hearings;
( 6 ) Rule on motions and other procedural matters;
( 7 ) Regulate the scope and timing of discovery;
( 8 ) Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of representatives and parties;
( 9 ) Examine witnesses;
( 10 ) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence;
( 11 ) Upon motion of a party, take official notice of facts;
( 12 ) Upon motion of a party, decide cases, in whole or in part, by summary judgment where there is no disputed issue of material fact;
( 13 ) Conduct any conference, argument, or hearing on motions in person or by telephone; and
( 14 ) Exercise such other authority as is necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the ALJ under this part.
( c ) The ALJ does not have the authority to find Federal statutes or regulations invalid.
§ 843.208 Notification of current and/or former spouse before payment of unexpended balance to a separated employee. ( a ) Payment to an employee of the unexpended balance may be made only if current and former spouses are notified of the former employee's application.
( b ) Proof of notification will consist of a signed and witnessed statement by the current and/or former spouse on a form provided by OPM acknowledging that he or she has been informed of the former employee's application for the unexpended balance and the consequences of the refund on the current or former spouse's possible annuity entitlement. This statement must be presented to the employing agency or OPM when filing the application for the unexpended balance.
( c ) If the current and/or former spouse refuses to acknowledge the notification or the employee is otherwise unable to obtain the acknowledgment, the employee must submit— ( 1 ) Affidavits signed by two individuals who witnessed the employee's attempt to personally notify the current or former spouse. The witnesses must attest that they were in the presence of the employee and the current or former spouse and that the employee's purpose should have been clear to the current or former spouse; or
( 2 ) The current mailing address of the current or former spouse. OPM will attempt to notify (by certified mail—return receipt requested) the current or former spouse at the address provided by the employee. The unexpended balance will not be paid until OPM receives the signed return receipt.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group, Subcommittee D—Clinical Studies.                    

*Date:*                         December 8-10, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         7 p.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and Conference Ctr., 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         William D. Merritt, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Research Programs Review Branch, National Cancer Institute, Division of Extramural Activities, 6116 Executive Blvd., 8th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, (301) 496-9767,                         *wm63f@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 8, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-25345  Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
LEASING GROWS IN RUSSIA

----

by Marina Kamayeva
**August 1997**
Leasing is growing rapidly as a finance technique for U.S. firms exporting capital goods to Russia(see BISNIS Bulletin, April 1996, Page 3).  A number of U.S. and other foreign leasingcompanies are now operating in Russia, where they are well positioned to provide competitiveservices because of the high cost of domestic credit.  Despite leasing's advantages, successfultransactions in Russia require careful planning.
Leasing experts predict very rapid development of leasing in Russia's major cities over the nextthree years. The acute need to upgrade obsolete equipment combined with an underdevelopedbanking system encourages flexibility and innovation in financing.  Banks find it difficult toevaluate or secure credit risk, which can result in collateral values considerably exceeding the loanvalue.  Non-bank financing is also difficult to obtain and carries a substantial risk premium. Leasing offers U.S. equipment manufacturers and sellers and Russian end-users easier access toeconomical medium-term financing.
Hewlett Packard and IBM already have considerable experience leasing computer equipment inRussia and are considering establishing leasing subsidiaries in Russia.  AT&T Capital hasorganized a wholly owned Russian leasing company to engage in a broad range of small andmedium-sized leasing transactions.  Lease Holding, B.V., backed by American InternationalGroup and Cargill Enterprises, is forming joint-venture leasing companies with a major bank tooperate in Russia's three largest cities.  General Electric, backed by  the Export-Import Bankof the United States, leased gas-fired turbines to the Chelyabinsk Electro-MetallurgicalPlant.
**Opportunities**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Delmar D. Martin, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Cars-

well, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Milton Senfeld, Appellant.

No opinion. Present - — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
Submitted on record and briefs December 3, 1999,

affirmed November 15, 2000,

petition for review denied January 30, 2001 (331 Or 583)

#### PETER FRANKS, *Appellant, v.*Robert LAMPERT, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, *Respondent.*

(98-11-30, 126M; CA A106464)

14 P3d 646

Bob Pangburn filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*74PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a judgment that denied his petition for post-conviction relief. He assigns error to the post-conviction court’s denial of relief on the merits of his petition and to the court’s requirement that he pay $975 for the costs of his court-appointed counsel in the post-conviction proceeding.

We reject without discussion the assignments of error that challenge the trial court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. With regard to the order that required petitioner to repay the state the cost of his court-appointed counsel, petitioner contends that the court lacked authority to impose that requirement. ORS 151.505 authorizes a court to require a petitioner to repay the costs of court-appointed counsel in any post-conviction proceeding in which the first petition in the proceeding was filed after January 1, 1998. Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction relief in this proceeding in April 1998. Hence, ORS 151.505 applies to the proceeding and provides authority for the court to require petitioner to repay the cost of his appointed counsel.1

Affirmed.

1

 The only argument raised by petitioner is that the court lacked authority to require him to repay the cost of his counsel. He did not argue that the court failed to comply with the standards established by ORS 151.505 for the imposition of costs, including the guidelines that ORS 151.487 requires the State Court Administrator to adopt. *See*ORS 151.505(4); *State v.*Venturi, 166 Or App 46, 53 n 4, 998 P2d 748, *rev den*330 Or 375 (2000).
#### § 831.1101 Scope.

This subpart prescribes the procedures to be followed in determining whether payment of an annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, is prohibited by subchapter II of that chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2266 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2266

To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued use of 
  established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2003

Mr. Simpson (for himself and Mr. Otter) introduced the following bill; 
            which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued use of 
  established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUED USE OF ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER HUNTING 
              CAMPS ON THE SALMON RIVER.

    Section 3(a)(24) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C 
1274(a)(24)) is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) 
as subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively, and by inserting after 
subparagraph (C) the following:
    ``(D) The established use and occupancy of lands and maintenance or 
replacement of facilities and structures for commercial recreation 
services at Stub Creek located in Section 28, T24N, R14E, Boise 
Principal Meridian, at Arctic Creek located in Section 21, T25N, R12E, 
Boise Principal Meridian and at Smith Gulch located in Section 27, 
T25N, R12E, Boise Principal Meridian shall continue to be authorized, 
subject to such reasonable regulation as the Secretary deems 
appropriate, including rules that would provide for termination for 
noncompliance, and if terminated, reoffering the site through a 
competitive process.''.
                                 <all>
```