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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.66


                                 DESCRIPTION OF
                       REDUCTION IN FORCE SEVERANCE PLAN
                       ----------------------------------


     In an effort to encourage the retention of key management personnel, the 
Company has adopted a Reduction in Force Severance Plan, pursuant to which 
employees at the Director level and above will be eligible to receive 
Severance payments if their positions are eliminated in fiscal 1997 (other 
than due to voluntary resignation, death, disability or cause). The size of 
the Severance payment for each such employee will be based upon position and 
length of service as follows:


Position                        Length of Service             SEVERANCE Payment
--------                        -----------------             ------------------

Director level                  0-2 years                     12 weeks salary
                                2-5 years                     16 weeks salary
                                over 5 years                  20 weeks salary

Vice President level            0-2 years                     20 weeks salary
and above                       2-5 years                     24 weeks salary
                                over 5 years                  28 weeks salary
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE THOMAS WILKERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WORLD SAVINGS AND LOAN

ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-17293

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02168-LKKDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2010** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

George Thomas Wilkerson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging various state-law claims concerning, inter alia, his

home mortgage loan and the foreclosure of his home in 2001. We have

FILED

NOV 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17293

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Silvas v. E*Trade

Mortgage Corp., 514 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed the complaint. To the extent that

Wilkerson’s claims fall within the categories listed in 12 C.F.R. § 560.2(b), they

are preempted by the Home Owners’ Loan Act. See Silvas, 514 F.3d at 1004-06. 

His remaining claims are time-barred. See Guaranty Trust Company of New York

v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 110-11 (1945) (in diversity cases, forum state law determines

which state’s statute of limitations governs); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 318, 337-39,

343 (setting forth relevant California statutes of limitations). Moreover, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox

Int’l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002).

Wilkerson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Wilkerson’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. 

AFFIRMED.
2006-0600.

#### Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 04-1932-EL-ATA. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission. Upon consideration of the motion of First Energy Corporation for leave to intervene as appellee,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted.
§ 1780.36 Approving official review. Projects may be obligated as their applications are completed and approved. ( a ) *Selection of applications for further processing.* The application and supporting information submitted will be used to determine the applications selected for further development and funding. After completing the review, the approval official will normally select those eligible applications with the highest priority scores for further processing. When authorizing the development of an application for funding, the following will be considered: ( 1 ) Funds available in State allocation;
( 2 ) Anticipated allocation of funds for the next fiscal year; and
( 3 ) Time necessary for applicant to complete the application.
( b ) *Lower scoring projects.* ( 1 ) In cases where preliminary cost estimates indicate that an eligible, high scoring application is unfeasible or would require an amount of funding from RUS that exceeds either 25 percent of a State's current annual allocation or an amount greater than that remaining in the State's allocation, the approval official may instead select the next lower scoring application for further processing provided the high scoring applicant is notified of this action and given an opportunity to revise the proposal and resubmit it.
( 2 ) If it is found that there is no effective way to reduce costs or no other funding sources, the approval official, after consultation with applicant, may submit a request for an additional allocation of funds for the proposed project to the National Office. The request should be submitted during the fiscal year in which obligation is anticipated. Such request will be considered along with all others on hand. A written justification must be prepared and placed in the project file.
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 Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a California limited liability company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Kirby D. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Kirby D. Cochran Kirby D. Cochran, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Dated November 13, 2007
§ 1776.14 Eligibility to receive a DWS loan. ( a ) The loan recipient must be an eligible individual.
( b ) The loan recipient must either own and occupy the home being improved with the proceeds of the DWS loan, or be occupying the home as the purchaser under a legally enforceable land purchase contract which is not in default by either the seller or the purchaser.
( c ) The home using the water well system being funded from proceeds of the DWS loan must be located in a rural area.
( d ) The water well system being funded from the proceeds of the DWS loan may not be associated with the construction of a new dwelling.
( e ) The water well system being funded from the proceeds of the DWS loan may not be used to substitute for water service available from collective water systems. Example: Loan recipient wishes to restore an old well which had been abandoned when the dwelling was connected to a water line belonging to a water district.
( f ) A loan recipient must not be suspended or debarred from participation in Federal programs.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2087 

To prohibit Federal funds for the establishment or operation of patient 

navigator programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2013 

Mrs. BLACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funds for the establishment or operation 

of patient navigator programs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Taxpayer 

5 Dollars and Identity under Obamacare Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2087 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE ESTAB2 LISHMENT OR OPERATION OF PATIENT NAVI3 GATOR PROGRAMS. 

4 None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Fed5 eral law may be used for the establishment or operation 

6 of a navigator program under section 1311(i) of the Pa7 tient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 18031(i)) or for the establishment or operation of any 

9 non-navigator program that provides any of the types of 

10 assistance described in paragraph (3) of such section, re11 gardless of whether such a program is established in con12 nection with a State or Federally operated Exchange. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 205.661 Investigation. ( a ) A certifying agent may investigate complaints of noncompliance with the Act or regulations of this part concerning production and handling operations certified as organic by the certifying agent. A certifying agent must notify the Program Manager of all compliance proceedings and actions taken pursuant to this part.
( b ) A State organic program's governing State official may investigate complaints of noncompliance with the Act or regulations in this part concerning organic production or handling operations operating in the State.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT  21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


American Network Exchange, Inc.
Capital Network System Inc.
Capital Network International, Inc. (1)
Capital Network Mexico (2)
AMNEX International, Inc.
National Billing Exchange, Inc. (3)
Crescent Public Communications, Inc.
American Hotel Exchange, Inc.
Sun Tel North America, Inc. (4)
Telecommunity & International Network Services, Inc. (5)






(1)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital Network System, Inc.

(2)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital Network International, Inc.

(3)      80%-owned subsidiary of AMNEX, Inc.

(4)      80%-owned subsidiary of Crescent Public Communications, Inc.

(5)      50%-owned subsidiary of AMNEX, Inc.
§ 250.39 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) *Waiver of processing requirements.* The Food and Nutrition Service may waive any of the requirements contained in this part for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects to test program changes designed to improve the processing of donated foods. *(b) Processing activity guidance.* Distributing agencies must develop and provide a processing manual or similar procedural material for guidance to contracting agencies, recipient agencies, and processors. Distributing agencies must revise these materials as necessary to reflect policy and regulatory changes. This guidance material must be provided to contracting agencies, recipient agencies, and processors at the time of the approval of the initial agreement by the distributing agency, when there have been regulatory or policy changes which necessitate changes in the guidance materials, and upon request. The manual must include, at a minimum, statements of the distributing agency's policies and procedures regarding: ( 1 ) Contract approval;
( 2 ) Monitoring and review of processing activities;
( 3 ) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements;
( 4 ) Inventory controls; and
( 5 ) Refund applications.
( c ) *Guidance or information.* Guidance or information relating to the processing of donated foods is included on the FNS website or may otherwise be obtained from FNS.
§ 248.9 Nutrition education. ( a ) *Goals.* Nutrition education shall emphasize the relationship of proper nutrition to the total concept of good health, including the importance of consuming fresh fruits and vegetables.
( b ) *Requirement.* The State agency shall integrate nutrition education into FMNP operations and may satisfy nutrition education requirements through coordination with other agencies within the State. Such other agencies may include the WIC Program which routinely offers nutrition education to participants and which may wish to use the opportunity of the FMNP to reinforce nutrition messages. State agencies wishing to coordinate nutrition education with WIC shall enter into a written cooperative agreement with WIC agencies to offer nutrition education relevant to the use and nutritional value of foods available to FMNP recipients. In cases where relevant WIC nutrition education sessions are used to meet this requirement, reimbursement to the WIC local agency shall not be permitted. In cases where FMNP recipients are not receiving relevant nutrition education from the WIC Program, the State agency shall arrange alternative methods for the provision of such nutrition education which is an allowable cost under the FMNP.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 149 V

(Not to be published 1 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

ELAINE DEJESUS

, *

*

Petitioner, * Filed: June 17, 2013

*

v. * De cision by Stipulation; Influenza

* Vaccine; Chronic Inflammatory

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

HUMAN SERVICES * ( “ CIDP ” )

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION

HASTINGS, Special Master

.

This is an action seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation

Progra m 2 on account of an inj u ry suffered by Elaine Dejesus

. On June 13, 2013 , counsel for

both parties filed a Stipulation, stipulating that a decision should be entered granting

compensation. The parties have stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following

compensation:

● A lump sum of $80 ,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner,

representing compensation for all damages that would be available under

42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 15(a).

1 Because this document contains an explanation for my action in this case, I intend to post

this document on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the

E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002).

Therefore, as provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or

financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar

f iles the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.”

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, this entire document will be available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10

et seq. (2006 ed.). Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references will be to 42 U.S.C. (2006

ed.).● A lump sum of $20,877.84 , in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner

and petition er’s counsel, Anne Carrion Toale , representi ng compensation for

attorney’s fees and costs.

Under the statute governing the Program, as well as the “Vaccine Rules” adopted by this

court, the special master must now enter a decision endorsing that stipulation, and the clerk must

enter judgment, in order to authorize payment of the award. See § 300aa

- 12(d)(3)(A) and (e)(3);

§ 300aa

- 13( a); Vaccine Rules 10(a), 11(a). 3

I have reviewed the file, and based on that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation

appears to be an appropriate one. Accordingly, my decision is that a Program award shall be

m ade to petitioner in the amount set forth above. In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for

review of this Decision, the clerk shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

3 The “Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims” are found in Appendix B of

the Rules of the United States C ourt of Federal Claims.
Form of Promissory Note



 EXHIBIT 10.17 
  
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	$25,000,000	 	September     , 2004

  
 ARGONAUT GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), promises to pay to the order of LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the “Lender”) the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Loans made by the Lender to the Borrower
pursuant to Article II of the Agreement (as hereinafter defined), in immediately available funds at the main office of LaSalle Bank National Association in Chicago, Illinois, as Administrative Agent, together with interest on the unpaid principal
amount hereof at the rates and on the dates set forth in the Agreement. The Borrower shall pay the principal of and accrued and unpaid interest on the Loans in full on the Termination Date and shall make such mandatory payments as are required to be
made under the terms of Article II of the Agreement. 
  
 The
Lender shall, and is hereby authorized to, record on the schedule attached hereto, or to otherwise record in accordance with its usual practice, the date and amount of each Loan and the date and amount of each principal payment hereunder.

  
 This Note is one of the Notes issued pursuant to, and is
entitled to the benefits of, the Credit Agreement dated as of September     , 2004, (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time and in effect from time to time, the
“Agreement”), among the Borrower, the Lender and certain other financial institutions as lenders, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as Administrative Agent, to which Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement of the
terms and conditions governing this Note, including the terms and conditions under which this Note may be prepaid or its maturity date accelerated. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings attributed
to them in the Agreement. 
  
 THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY
AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAWS (INCLUDING 735 ILCS SECTION 105/5-1 ET SEQ. BUT OTHERWISE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PROVISIONS) OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, BUT GIVING EFFECT TO FEDERAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL
BANKS. 
  

			
	 ARGONAUT GROUP, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	  


	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 









 SCHEDULE OF LOANS AND PAYMENTS OF PRINCIPAL 
 TO 
 NOTE OF ARGONAUT GROUP, INC., 
  
 DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER     , 2004 
  

									
	 Date

	 	 Principal
 Amount of
 Loan

	 	 Maturity
 of Interest
 Period

	 	 Principal
 Amount
 Paid

	 	 Unpaid
 Balance
Officers and Key Employees Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1.24 
  
 TERRA INDUSTRIES INC. 
 2005 OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES
INCENTIVE PLAN 
  

	·	Participation – Terra’s President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Terra officers and key employees the CEO selects to participate. 

  

	·	Authority – The CEO selects the bonus target for each participant and evaluates each participant’s goal achievement. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
approves the totals of the Plan’s targeted bonuses (the “Pool”) and amounts awarded. 

  

	·	Goals – Each participant selects goals for the year. The CEO approves all goals and any changes in goals during the year. Each participant evaluates his/her goal achievement in
January 2006. The CEO accepts each participant’s goal achievement or modifies it to recognize the value of the goal achievement to Terra, changed conditions, etc. 

  

	·	Bonuses awarded – While bonuses paid to each participant are subject to the CEO’s judgment and Compensation Committee’s approval, the total of bonuses paid will depend
on Terra’s 2005 income from continuing operations (“Income”) as follows: 

  

	 	·	If Terra’s 2005 Income is less than $30 million – Discretionary bonuses of as much as 50% of each participant’s targeted bonus (year-end base salary times the percentage bonus
target selected by the CEO) may be paid based on Terra’s overall performance and each participant’s goal achievement. 

  

	 	·	If Terra’s 2005 Income is $30 million – Bonuses totaling 50% of the Pool will be paid based on the individual and aggregate goal achievement of the Plan’s participants.


  

	 	·	If Terra’s 2005 Income is more than $30 million but not greater than $105 million – The portion of the Pool paid will be increased by 1% for each $0.5 million Terra’s 2005
Income is above $30 million to a maximum payment of 200% of the Pool. 

  

	 	·	If Terra’s 2005 Income exceeds $105 million – Bonuses in excess of 200% of the Pool may be awarded solely at the Compensation Committee’s discretion. 


 

	·	Payment of bonuses – Bonuses will be paid after the Compensation Committee has approved the discretionary bonuses, if any, or, in the event Terra’s 2005 Income is $30 million
or more, the bonus Pool calculation and distribution. To receive a bonus, a participant must be a Terra employee on the day the bonuses are paid.
Minutes from 9

‐ 18

‐ 2015 Meeting Between EPA and ADAMA, the Novaluron Technical

Registrant



## Meeting Minutes

Office of Pesticide Programs

Pesticide Re

‐ Evaluation Division RMIB II/ADAMA

EPA Offices, Arlington, VA

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Re: Novaluron (EPA PC Code 124002)

ADAMA Participants:

Ephi Gur

‐ ADAMA Consultant

Rob Everich

‐ ADAMA Consultant

Laura Phelps

‐ Regulatory Manager

EPA Participants:

Greg Orrick, Environmental Risk Branch I, Risk Assessment Process Leader

Kristina Garber, Environmental Risk Branch I Senior Advisor

Ryan Mroz, Environmental Risk Branch I, Biologist

He Zhong, Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Tom Myers, Pesticide Re

‐ Evaluation Division, Team Lead

Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager, Pesticide Re

‐ Evaluation Division

Sujatha Sankula, Environmental Risk Branch I, Branch Chief

Novaluron Registrant Meeting. On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, representatives from ADAMA, the

novaluron technical registrant, visited OPP’s office for a discussion of pending data requirements to be

included in the novaluron Final Work Plan and accompanying Data Call

‐ In. Data requirements are being

proposed for the parent compound novaluron as well as degradates chlorophenyl urea and

chloroaniline.

Novaluron is an insect growth regulator used for the control of insects on field crops; on ornamentals

and food crops which are container or field

‐ grown in greenhouses, shadehouses, and nurseries; in post

‐

harvest fruit treatments; in seed treatments; in anti

‐ mosquito larvacidal pellets; as a cricket control

inside and near buildings; on dog collars; and as a spot use on turf/lawns. It affects the immature

growth stages of the target pests. The Agency plans to conduct a full ecological risk assessment as well

as spray drift and volatilization assessments.

The meeting was called to order by Margaret Hathaway, who stated that the purpose of the meeting

was to discuss with ADAMA the studies and data associated with the upcoming Novaluron Data

‐ Call

‐ In.ADAMA gave a presentation to EPA discussing the metabolites and pathway of novaluron degredation

as well as the toxicity profile of novaluron. It was noted that ADAMA is a member of both the Federal

Endangered Species Task Force and the Generic Endangered Species Task Force.

ADAMA’s presentation was followed by a discussion reviewing the Agency’s proposed data needs for

novaluron, including pollinator data. ADAMA indicated that they have already completed various

studies they can supply to EPA for review.

Next Steps : EPA plans to issue a Final Work Plan (FWP) in September 2015. At that time, a draft Data

‐

Call

‐ In will also be submitted for OMB approval. Once finalized, the FWP and Data

‐ Call

‐ In will both be

publically available in the novlauron Registration Review docket (EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OPP

‐ 2015

‐ 0171) on

Regulations.gov.