alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Promotion letter between Dean Foods and Chris Sliva



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 October 6, 2010 

Christopher Sliva 
 Dear Chris: 

Congratulations on your promotion to Chief Commercial Officer. This position will continue to report to me. 

Here are the specifics of your offer: 

Effective Date 
 This promotion is
effective immediately. 
 Base Salary 
 You will be paid $20,833.33 on a semi-monthly basis, less payroll taxes, which equates to an annual salary of $500,000, less payroll taxes. 
 Annual Incentive Opportunity 
 Effective October 1, 2010, you will be
eligible to earn an annual incentive as a participant in the Dean Foods Corporate Short-Term Incentive Plan with a target amount equal to 75% of your annualized base salary, subject to the achievement of certain financial targets for Morningstar and
Dean Foods, and certain individual objectives. For 2010, your annual incentive will be prorated for nine (9) months as President - Morningstar and the remaining three (3) months as Chief Commercial Officer. For 2011, your financial targets
will be measured against the Dairy Core business and Dean Foods. 
 Long Term Incentive Compensation – Special Promotion Grant

 On October 6, 2010, subject to Compensation Committee approval, you will be granted a long-term incentive target
award of $100,000 in the form of restricted stock units. Your actual grant will be calculated based on the closing price of Dean Foods stock on the date of grant. The restricted stock units will vest in equal installments over a period of three
years, beginning on the first anniversary of the date of the grant. In 2011, you will be eligible for a Long Term Incentive grant commensurate with the position of Chief Commercial Officer. The amount and nature of any future long-term incentive
awards will be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. 







  
 Benefits 

You will continue to be eligible for FlexSelect benefits (medical, dental, vision), 401(k), Executive Deferred Compensation, Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan (SERP), and more. 
 Conclusion 
 Chris, I continue to be impressed with your leadership at Dean Foods. I look forward to your continued significant contributions to our Company. 

 

	
	 Best regards,

	
	 /s/ Joseph Scalzo

	
	 Joseph Scalzo

	 President & Chief Operating Officer, Dean Foods



  


	
	 Agreed and accepted:

	
	 /s/ Christopher Sliva

	 Christopher Sliva

	
	 October 6, 2010

	 Date



  
 2
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121853) pertaining to the
Equity Incentive Plan of GMH Communities Trust and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 145075) pertaining to the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan of GMH
Communities Trust of our report dated July 27, 2006, except Notes 13, 15, and 16 (for 2005) as to which the date is June 4, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of GMH Communities Trust included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

| |  |                      
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
March 13, 2008

---



QuickLinks
### §7385s–8. Medical benefits

A covered DOE contractor employee shall be furnished medical benefits specified in section 7384t of this title for the covered illness to the same extent, and under the same conditions and limitations, as an individual eligible for medical benefits under that section is furnished medical benefits under that section.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3679], as added Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3161, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2183.)
§ 16.7 Administrative review of initial denial of access. ( a ) Review shall be available only from a written denial of a request for access issued under § 16.6(a) (2) or (3) and only if a written request for review is filed within thirty calendar days after the issuance of the written denial.
( b ) A request for review shall be addressed to the Privacy Appeals Officer identified in the initial denial, which official is authorized to make final determinations. The envelope containing the request for review and the letter itself should both clearly indicate that the subject is a PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR REVIEW.
( c ) When a request for review is misdirected by the requester, or not addressed as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Department official receiving same shall promptly refer it to the Privacy Appeals Officer and the time of receipt for processing purposes will be the time when it is received by the appropriate official.
( d ) When a request for review fails to provide necessary information as set forth in paragraph (e) of this section, the requester shall be given reasonable opportunity to amend the request and shall be advised that the time of receipt for processing purposes will be the time when the additional necessary information is received by the appropriate official.
( e ) The filing of a request for review may be accomplished by mailing to the Privacy Appeals Officer a copy of the request for access, if in writing; a copy of the written denial issued under § 16.6; and a statement of the reasons why the initial denial is believed to be in error. The appeal shall be signed by the individual.
( f ) No hearing will be allowed in connection with administrative review of an initial denial of access.
( g ) The Privacy Appeals Officer shall act upon the appeal and issue a final determination in writing not later than thirty days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) from the date on which the appeal is received; provided, that the Privacy Appeals officer may extend the thirty days upon deciding that a fair and equitable review cannot be made within that period, but only if the individual is advised in writing of the reason for the extension and the estimated date by which a final determination will issue, which estimated date should not be later than the sixtieth day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays) after receipt of the appeal unless there exist unusual circumstances, as described in § 16.5(a).
( h ) The decision after review will be in writing, will constitute final action of the Department on a request for access, and, if the denial of the request is in whole or part upheld, the Department shall notify the person making the request of his right to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1), as amended by 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(5).
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.200 What is the Appraiser Roster? ( a ) *Appraiser Roster.* HUD maintains a list of appraisers. A mortgagee must select only an appraiser from this list for the appraisal of a property that is to be the security for an FHA-insured single family mortgage.
( b ) *Disclaimer.* Since an appraisal is performed to determine the maximum insurable mortgage and to also protect the FHA insurance funds, the inclusion of an appraiser on the Appraiser Roster does not create or imply a warranty or endorsement to a prospective homebuyer or to any other organization or individual by HUD of the listed appraiser nor does it represent a warranty of any appraisal performed by the listed appraiser. The inclusion of an appraiser on the Appraiser Roster means only that a listed appraiser has met the qualifications and conditions, prescribed by the Secretary, for inclusion on the Appraiser Roster.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO RELATE CASES

Now pending is a motion to relate the above-entitled action to Case No. 10-03112 EMC. 

Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) states that actions are related when (1) the “actions concern substantially

the same parties, property, transaction or event,” and (2) “[i]t appears likely that there will be an

unduly burdensome duplication of labor or expense or conflicting results if the cases are

conducted before different Judges.”

These actions do not involve the same parties or issues. In the present action, all

defendants were officers or employees of a local union — the UHW — prior to the imposition of

a trusteeship by the international union — the SEIU. The SEIU alleged that defendants — who

left after the trusteeship was imposed to form a new, rival union called the NUHW — committed

misconduct before they left UHW. By contrast, the new action involves a challenge by several

individuals affiliated with the NUHW to the validity of the trusteeship itself. The present action

expressly did not involve the validity of the trusteeship. Moreover, none of the individual

plaintiffs affiliated with the new case were parties in the present action. Nor are the individual

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 719 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

defendants in the present action parties in the new action. For these reasons, the two matters are

not related. The motion to relate cases is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 719 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Albert Mueller, executor of the will of Henry Chapino, deceased, appellant, v. Dora Barcus, appellee.

Bill to construe will as to disposition of income from property. Decree granting rents, issues and profits to defendant for life. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

Jesse Peebles, for appellant. Thos. Binaker and T. K. Binaker, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of George A. Glock v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the proceeding to be heard on the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed petitioner’s points, upon condition that the petitioner serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed petitioner’s points on the Attorney-General of the State of New York and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of petitioner’s points, together with the original record, with this court. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §7176. Reorganization

For the purposes of chapter 9 of title 5 the Commission shall be deemed to be an independent regulatory agency.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title IV, §406, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 586.)
### §658. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–200, title II, §201(f)(1), July 16, 1998, 112 Stat. 657

Section, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §458, as added Pub. L. 93–647, §101(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2357; amended Pub. L. 95–30, title V, §503(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 162; Pub. L. 96–272, title III, §307, June 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 531; Pub. L. 97–248, title I, §174(c), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 403; Pub. L. 98–378, §5(a), (c)(2)(A), Aug. 16, 1984, 98 Stat. 1312, 1314; Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1883(b)(7), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2917; Pub. L. 100–485, title I, §127, Oct. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 2355; Pub. L. 104–193, title III, §§341(a), formerly 341(b), 395(d)(1)(F), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2231, 2259; Pub. L. 105–33, title V, §5550(b), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 634; Pub. L. 105–200, title II, §201(e)(1)(A), July 16, 1998, 112 Stat. 657, related to incentive payments to States for child support enforcement programs.
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Chadwick S. Parson, certify that:

 

1.            I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1;

 

2.            Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.            I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

 

5.            The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, that is included in these reports. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.

 

 

By:      /s/ Chadwick S. Parson                       

Name:  Chadwick S. Parson

Title     Managing Director and President   

Structured Obligations Corporation

(senior officer in charge of securitization
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Victor H. Gifford, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Warren County which denied defendant’s motion in the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*addressed to his conviction of assault in the second degree. Defendant (1) attacks the sufficiency of the indictment, (2) claims error in the charge and (3) finally asserts that a prior conviction which became erroneous as to sentence (when a conviction preceding that was vacated) in some way vitiates his latest conviction and sentence as a multiple offender or entitles him to some amelioration thereof. Upon the papers before us on this appeal these contentions appear groundless. In any event, each supposed defect appears upon the face of the record and, therefore, none affords a basis for *coram nobis. (People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196; and as to supposed defective indictment see *People*v. *Fortson,*7 A D 2d 139, citing *People*v. *Eastman,*306 N. Y. 658.) It seems not amiss to remark that defendant’s conviction was affirmed in this court and aspects of his ease were also considered on another appeal. *(People*v. *Gifford,*2 A D 2d 634; *People*v. *Gifford,*7 A D 2d 787.) Further, defendant’s third contention, above indicated, has been expressly determined adversely to him by this court on one occasion and inferentially on at least one other. *(People*v. *Gifford,*2 A D 2d 642; *People*v. *Gifford,*8 A D 2d 909; and see *People*v. *Kowalsky,*2 A D 2d 938, affd. 2 N Y 2d 949.) Order affirmed. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 09-0493 JSW

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

PATRICIA SPALETTA (CABN 156788)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 522-6031

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: Patricia.Spaletta@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

REFUGIO GALLEGOS-VALDIVIAS,

 a/k/a Cuco Gallegos-Valdivias, and

 a/k/a Cuco Gallegos-Valdivious,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. CR 09-0493 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM

FEBRUARY 25, 2010 TO MARCH 4, 2010

The parties last appeared before the Court on February 25, 2010, at which time the matter

was set to March 4, 2010 for a change of plea. 

The parties agree that the time between February 25, 2010 and March 4, 2010 should be

excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, in light of the defendant’s need for additional time to

confer with his counsel. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny

defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence and the need for counsel to effectively prepare and to review the

presentence investigation report. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv)

Case 3:09-cr-00493-JSW Document 33 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-00493-JSW Document32 Filed02/26/10 Page1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 09-0493 JSW 2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: February 25, 2010 /s/ 

LOREN D. STEWART

Counsel for Refugio Gallegos-Valdivias

DATED: February 25, 2010 /s/ 

PATRICIA SPALETTA

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Given the reasons stipulated by the parties above, the Court finds that the ends of justice

served by excluding the period from February 25, 2010 to March 4, 2010 from the Speedy Trial

Act outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the period from February 25, 2010 to March 4, 2010,

be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________ ________________________________

THE HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Court Judge

Case3:09-cr-00493-JSW Document32 Filed02/26/10 Page2 of 2

February 26, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00493-JSW Document 33 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2
### §§8731 to 8740. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 8731 to 8740 were omitted from the Code in view of termination of United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation. See note set out under section 8791 of this title.

Section 8731, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §131, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 654, authorized financial assistance.

Section 8732, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §132, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 658, related to loans made by Corporation.

Section 8733, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §133, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 660, related to loan guarantees made by Corporation.

Section 8734, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §134, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 661, related to price guarantees by Corporation.

Section 8735, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §135, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 661, related to purchase agreements made by Corporation.

Section 8736, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §136, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 662, related to joint ventures by Corporation.

Section 8737, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §137, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 663, related to control of assets.

Section 8738, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §138, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 665, related to unlawful contracts.

Section 8739, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §139, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 665, related to fees and application of receipts.

Section 8740, Pub. L. 96–294, title I, §140, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 665, related to disposition of securities.
<PAGE>   1
                                        
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                        Entex Information Services, Inc.

                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
               (In thousands except share and per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended
                                                                December 28,      December,29,      December 28,       December 29,
                                                                    1997              1996              1997               1996
<S>                                                            <C>               <C>               <C>                <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding for the period         32,399,060        32,323,112        32,399,060         32,323,112

Common equivalent shares from stock options                                                                                        
     and warrants using the treasury stock method                  1,328,665                --         1,328,665                 --
                                                                -------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding for the period
     and diluted potential common share arrangements              33,727,725        32,323,112        33,727,725         32,323,112

Net income(loss)                                                       8,453            (3,982)           13,153             (9,790)

Basic earnings per share                                        $       0.26      $      (0.12)     $       0.41       $      (0.30)
                                                                ============      ============      ============       ============
Diluted earnings per share                                      $       0.25      $      (0.12)     $       0.39       $      (0.30)
                                                                ============      ============      ============       ============
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officerof Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   May 5, 2005 |   |   | /s/ Michael G. Long                                                      |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Name:  |         Michael  G. Long         |   |
|                                     |   |   |         Chief  Financial Officer |   |

 

----