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

                                 EXHIBIT 10.2.1
             ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES


The following provides a summary of the significant changes to the Annual
Incentive Plan for 1996, which have been approved by the UNUM Life Insurance
Company of America Board of Directors.


-    A change in the incentive target payout percentages for our senior
     management group;

-    For Enterprise Staff employees, a change in the weightings of the
     performance components from 60% based on Enterprise results and 40% based
     on Division results to 70% based on Enterprise results and 30% based on
     Division results.

-    For Enterprise Line employees, a change in the weightings of the
     performance components from 40% based on Enterprise results and 60% based
     on Division results to 30% based on Enterprise results and 70% based on
     Division results

-    For Enterprise Staff and Enterprise Line employees, the ability for the
     Business Unit/Divisional performance component to pay out independent of
     Enterprise results.

-    For UNUM America employees, the weighting on the Business Unit/Division
     performance component has been eliminated, so now the payout is based only
     on Enterprise and UNUM America results.

A listing of the incentive target payout percentage targets and performance
component weightings for all eligible employees follows.  The revised incentive
targets for the senior management group appear in bands A through G.


ORGANIZATION:                      UNUM AMERICA   ENTERPRISE     ENTERPRISE
                                                  STAFF UNITS    LINE UNITS

Band          Payout %                           Weightings
           ----------------        ----------------------------------------
                                   Ent  U/A       Ent  BU/       Ent    BU/
           Min    Trgt  Max                            Div              Div

1-12       5%     10%   20%        20%  80%       70%  30%       30%    70%
13-16      10%    20%   40%        20%  80%       70%  30%       30%    70%
17-19      15%    30%   60%        20%  80%       70%  30%       30%    70%
20         17.5%  35%   70%        30%  70%       70%  30%       30%    70%
G          20%    40%   80%        30%  70%       70%  30%       30%    70%
E-F        22.5%  45%   90%        30%  70%       70%  30%       30%    70%
D*         25%    50%   100%       30%  70%       70%  30%       30%    70%
C          27.5%  55%   110%       30%  70%       70%  30%       30%    70%
B          30%    60%   120%       100%           100%           100%
A          40%    80%   160%       100%           100%           100%


*Note:The weightings of the performance components for the Chief Investment
Officer are 40% Enterprise & 60% Investment results.
#### § 1740.77 Offer and closing.

Successful applicants will receive an offer letter and award documents from RUS following award notification. Applicants may view sample award documents on the Agency's web page.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James F. Cleary, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MWI Veterinary Supply,Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

c)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  February 6, 2006 | /S/ James F.  Cleary, Jr.                |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | James F.  Cleary, Jr.                    |
|                    | *President and  Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### § 1777.11 Public infrastructure—Making, processing, and servicing loans and grants.

Unless specifically modified by this part, loans and grants will be made and processed in accordance with 7 CFR 1780, “Water and Waste Loans and Grants” and serviced in accordance with 7 CFR 1782, “Servicing of Water and Waste Programs.”
Exhibit32.2

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

In connection with theAnnual Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

|              |                                                                                                                     |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|              |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

September 19, 2005

|  | /s/ Barton Heminover BartonHeminover Chief FinancialOfficer |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------|

----
2006-0599.

#### State v. Hach.

Summit App. No. 19772. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
#### §§ 1753.50-1753.55 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2246 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in order to limit 

the penalties to a State that does not meet its maintenance of effort 

level of funding to a one-time penalty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself and Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN

GRISHAM of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

in order to limit the penalties to a State that does 

not meet its maintenance of effort level of funding to 

a one-time penalty. 

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 ‘‘IDEA MOE Adjust5 ment Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2246 IH

1 SEC. 2. PENALTY LIMITATION. 

2 Section 612(a)(18) of the Individuals with Disabil3 ities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(18)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall re7 duce the allocation of funds under section 611 

8 for any fiscal year’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(i) REDUCTION.—The Secretary shall reduce the al10 location of funds under section 611 for 1 fiscal year.’’; 

11 and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In 

14 any case where a State’s allocation under 

15 clause (i) is reduced, the Secretary shall 

16 distribute to all other States (as that term 

17 is defined in section 611(g)(2)) that were 

18 not subject to a reduction in allocation 

19 under such clause, the amount by which 

20 any State’s allocation under section 611(d) 

21 was reduced under such clause, in accord22 ance with subclauses (II) and (III) of sec23 tion 611(d)(3)(A)(i) and without regard to 

24 paragraphs (A)(i)(I) and (B) of section 

25 611(d)(3). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2246 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) USE OF FUNDS BY STATES.— 

2 Each State that receives additional funds 

3 under clause (ii) shall allocate such funds 

4 to local educational agencies in accordance 

5 with section 611(f). 

6 ‘‘(iv) NO CONSIDERATION FOR FU7 TURE YEARS ALLOCATION.—Notwith8 standing section 611(d), in calculating the 

9 amounts for allocations under such section 

10 for fiscal year 2013 and all subsequent 

11 years, the Secretary, when determining the 

12 amount a State received under such sec13 tion for a preceding fiscal year, shall not 

14 consider— 

15 ‘‘(I) any amount by which a 

16 State’s allocation under such section 

17 for fiscal year 2012 or any subsequent 

18 year is reduced under clause (i); and 

19 ‘‘(II) any amount by which a 

20 State’s allocation increased, pursuant 

21 to clause (ii), as a result of a State’s 

22 reduction in allocation for fiscal year 

23 2012 or any subsequent year.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Q Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: Request for Extension at Joplin (DOT-OST-2006- Date: July 30, 2010 

23932) and Fort Leonard Wood (DOT-OST-1996-1167), 

Missouri ^-^ 

From: Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Reply to Kevin Schlemmer, 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53 Attn, of: X-53 Ext. 63176 

To: Dockets Operations, M-30 

On July 26, the Department requested community comments in response to carrier 

proposals for Essential Air Service at Joplin and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, be 

submitted by August 9. 

On July-27, we received a request for an extension to submit comments from Bruce 

Harrill, City Administrator for the City of Waynesville, Missouri, which has input on the 

carrier selection at Fort Leonard Wood. He states the next airport board meeting is 

scheduled for August 12. He requests an extension until August 16, so the Board has the 

opportunity to review the proposals and submit comments. 

We are hereby granting a one-week extension based on that request. Comments on 

proposals for Joplin and Fort Leonard Wood are now due no later than August 16, 2010.
2006-0184.

#### Caldwell v. Petersburg Stone Co.

Mahoning App. No. 05 MA 12, 2005-Ohio-6793. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I and discretionary cross-appeal accepted.

Resnick, J., would also accept the appeal on all other Propositions of Law.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         363,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,525,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,350
<INVENTORY>                                  2,402,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,821,915
<PP&E>                                       6,769,021
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,575,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,484,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,431,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,119
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,152,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,484,786
<SALES>                                      6,643,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,643,088
<CGS>                                        4,698,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,659,998
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             177,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,466
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,241
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795662
<NAME> STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,527)
<INVENTORY>                                     73,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,675
<PP&E>                                         747,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                 297,322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 765,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,765
<BONDS>                                        873,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,249
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                   (348,302)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   765,956
<SALES>                                        822,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               822,590
<CGS>                                          732,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  732,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (71,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (25,546)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,119)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.99)
        

</TABLE>
exv10w25



 




Exhibit 10.25




AMENDMENT #5 TO SATELLITE SERVICE AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT #5 (“Amendment #5”) to the Satellite Service Agreement effective as of March
21, 2003, as amended by Amendment #1 effective as of July 10, 2003, Amendment #3 effective as of
February 19, 2004, and Amendment #4 effective as of November 19, 2004 (collectively the “Original
Agreement”), between SES Americom, Inc., as agent for SES Americom California, Inc. (for the period
prior to the In-Service Date) and SES Americom Colorado, Inc. (for the period on and after the
In-Service Date), on the one hand, and EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (“Customer”) *** is made
effective as of November 19, 2004 (the “Amendment #5 Effective Date”). All references to “SES
Americom” herein shall include SES Americom California, Inc., SES Americom Colorado, Inc., and SES
Americom, Inc. as agent for each. Defined terms used in this Amendment #5 have the meanings
specified herein or in the Original Agreement. The Original Agreement as amended by this Amendment
#5 is referred to as the “Agreement”.



     SES Americom and Customer agree to amend the Original Agreement in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth below. ***



(5)    General. Except as expressly modified herein, the Original Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect in accordance with its terms and conditions.



     This Amendment #5 contains the complete and exclusive understanding of the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements between
the parties with respect thereto.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ECHOSTAR SATELLITE L.L.C.
 

By: EchoStar DBS Corporation, its

sole member	 	SES AMERICOM, INC., as agent for 

SES AMERICOM CALIFORNIA, INC. and

SES AMERICOM COLORADO, INC.
	 

	By:

	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	(Signature)	 	(Signature)
	 
	 
	Name:

	 	 	 	Name:	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	(Typed or Printed Name)	 	(Typed or Printed Name)
	 
	 
	Title:

	 	 	 	Title:	 	 	 
	

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 








***




-1-



***Certain confidential portions of this exhibit were omitted by means of redacting a portion of the text. Copies of the exhibit containing the redacted portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission subject to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act.
(April 17, 1980)

#### Merco Properties, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant-Respondent.

Motion by appellant-respondent for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court, dated November 13, 1979 [72 AD2d 765], which decided the appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County. Motion denied. On the court’s own motion, its decision and order, both dated November 13, 1979 are recalled and vacated and the following decision is therefore: "Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 3, 1977 upon reargument, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order entered upon reargument of a decision.” "Order dated January 3, 1978, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No opinion.” Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
AAM-13-325-E

May 01, 2013

 Exemption No. 10758

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0343

Mr. Chris Webb

Complete Helicopters

8891 Airport Road E13

Blaine, MN 55449

Dear Mr. Webb:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 10, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Complete Helicopters for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Complete Helicopters to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Complete Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Complete Helicopters an exemption from 14 CFR part 120

to the extent necessary to allow Complete Helicopters to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Complete Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations 

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Complete Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### MILLER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & Q. C. RY. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by Mary Miller against the New York & Queens County Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Queens County unanimously affirmed, with costs.
§ 205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production. The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production: ( a ) Ash from manure burning.
( b ) Arsenic.
( c ) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.
( d ) Lead salts.
( e ) Potassium chloride—unless derived from a mined source and applied in a manner that minimizes chloride accumulation in the soil.
( f ) Rotenone (CAS # 83-79-4).
( g ) Sodium fluoaluminate (mined).
( h ) Sodium nitrate—unless use is restricted to no more than 20% of the crop's total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005.
( i ) Strychnine.
( j ) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).
[68 FR 61992, Oct. 31, 2003, as amended at 83 FR 66572, Dec. 27, 2018]