alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Compensation of Named Excutive Officers of Curis, Inc.



 Exhibit 10.12 
  
 Compensation of Named Executive Officers of Curis, Inc. 
  
 As of March 1, 2005, following are the base salaries, on an annual basis, of
the named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Curis, Inc.: 
  

					
	Daniel R. Passeri	  	$360,000
	 	  	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	 
		
	Michael P. Gray	  	$225,000
	 	  	 Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	 
		
	Lee L. Rubin	  	$310,000
	 	  	 Senior Vice President of Research and Chief Scientific Officer
	  	 
		
	Mark W. Noel	  	$190,000
	 	  	 Vice President, Technology Management and Business Development
	  	 
		
	Mary Elizabeth Potthoff	  	$185,000
	 	  	 Vice President, General Counsel
	  	 

  
 In addition, each of
the named executive officers listed above is eligible to receive stock options and stock awards under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Curis, Inc.
#### § 28.27 Samples for Form D determination.

Samples for Form D determination shall be shipped or delivered at the owner's expense to the Classing Office serving the territory in which the samples are located. A tag or coupon showing the bale number of the bale from which the sample was drawn, or other identification, shall be placed between the two portions of each sample.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
§ 25.500 Indian reservations. ( a ) An area in an Indian reservation shall be treated as nominated by a State and a local government if it is nominated by the reservation governing body.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a reservation governing body must be the governing body of an Indian entity recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior.
( c ) Where two or more governing bodies have joint jurisdiction over an Indian reservation, the nomination of a reservation area must be a joint nomination.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George La Cava, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and new trial granted. Memorandum: We hold that the unprofessional and egregiously improper comments of the Assistant District Attorney in summation were so prejudicial as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see *People*v *Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109-110; *People v Rivera, 75*AD2d 544). The remarks to which defense counsel objected included the following: "Mr. Panzarella is trying to evoke sympathy for George La Cava. I say we are well rid of him and it doesn’t bother me one bit to say that that man is a liar and a thief, because that’s exactly what he is”; and "Members of my profession are honest and aboveboard whatever they are doing. George La Cava didn’t measure up and he didn’t on the witness stand. He lied to you, just as he lied to the Grand Jury and I say to you he is not worthy of your belief’; and "Ladies and Gentlemen: I am asking you for a verdict of guilty and I have never asked for a verdict of guilty. I left to the jury, but I say to you that there is no man more guilty than this one of the crimes of which he is charged.” The summation was a blatant effort to prejudice the jury against defendant, a disbarred attorney. Moreover, the prosecuting attorney improperly expressed his personal opinion concerning defendant’s credibility and his guilt or innocence (see *People v Puglisi,*44 NY2d 748; *People v Shanis,*36 NY2d 697; *People v Lovello,*1 NY2d 436). We have repeatedly warned against such conduct on the part of District Attorneys or their assistants. The above conduct so violates appropriate prosecutorial conduct that a new trial is required. Defendant’s other contentions on appeal present no basis for reversal. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—criminal possession of a forged instrument, second degree, and another charge.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
1

 The definitions for all previously defined capitalized terms are herein incorporated by

reference.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

IN RE: THE PROGRESSIVE

INSURANCE CORPORATION

UNDERWRITING AND RATING

PRACTICES LITIGATION

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-01519 MMP

______________________________________________________________________________

FINAL JUDGMENT

______________________________________________________________________________

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final

Approval of Amended Settlement and For Final Judgment (the “Motion”).1

By Order dated January 3, 2007, the Court approved and adopted the Parties’ Amended

Settlement Agreement, dismissed the Consolidated Cases with prejudice and directed entry of this

Final Judgment; based upon the foregoing it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 54(b), Final Judgment as to all claims in this multidistrict

litigation (consisting of the Consolidated Cases) is entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the

Defendants The Progressive Corporation, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive

Specialty Insurance Company, Progressive Classic Insurance Company, Progressive Halcyon

Insurance Company, Progressive Universal Insurance Company of Illinois, Mountain Laurel

Assurance Company, National Continental Insurance Company, Progressive Hawaii Insurance

Corporation, Progressive American Insurance Company, Progressive Bayside Insurance Company,

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 360 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company, United

Financial Casualty Company, Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, Progressive Home Insurance

Company, Specialty Risk Insurance Company, Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive

Consumers Insurance Company, Progressive West Insurance Company, Progressive Northern

Insurance Company, Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, Progressive Preferred Insurance

Company, Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company, Progressive Express Insurance Company,

Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois, Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company,

Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, Progressive Michigan Insurance Company,

Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, and Progressive Security Insurance Company (also

collectively referred to as “Progressive”). 

2. There being no just cause to delay appeal of all matters resolved in this multidistrict

litigation (consisting of the Consolidated Cases), let Final Judgment be entered in accordance with

the above; and 

3. In accordance with J.P.M.L. Rule 7.6, the Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy

of this Final Judgment and Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 360 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2
§ 205.660 General. ( a ) The National Organic Program's Program Manager, on behalf of the Secretary, may inspect and review certified production and handling operations and accredited certifying agents for compliance with the Act or regulations in this part.
( b ) The Program Manager may initiate suspension or revocation proceedings against a certified operation: ( 1 ) When the Program Manager has reason to believe that a certified operation has violated or is not in compliance with the Act or regulations in this part; or
( 2 ) When a certifying agent or a State organic program's governing State official fails to take appropriate action to enforce the Act or regulations in this part.
( c ) The Program Manager may initiate enforcement action against any person who sells, labels, or provides other market information concerning an agricultural product if such label or information implies that such product is produced or handled using organic methods, if the product was produced or handled in violation of the Organic Foods Production Act or the regulations in this part.
( d ) The Program Manager may initiate suspension or revocation of a certifying agent's accreditation if the certifying agent fails to meet, conduct, or maintain accreditation requirements pursuant to the Act or this part.
( e ) Each notification of noncompliance, rejection of mediation, noncompliance resolution, proposed suspension or revocation, and suspension or revocation issued pursuant to § 205.662, § 205.663, and § 205.665 and each response to such notification must be sent to the recipient's place of business via a delivery service which provides dated return receipts.
[65 FR 80637, Dec. 21, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 3625, Jan. 19, 2023]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of GuarantyBancorp (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:April 28, 2010

 

 

 
|   |   | /s/   Paul  W. Taylor                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Paul W. Taylor                                         |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Financial and Operating Officer and Secretary* |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2013 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 

Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2013 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. CHAFFETZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as 

the Davis-Bacon Act. 

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 ‘‘Davis-Bacon Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of 

8 title 40, United States Code, is repealed. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law to a 

10 wage requirement of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2013 IH

1 40, United States Code, shall after the date of the enact2 ment of this Act be null and void. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION. 

4 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 

5 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act but 

6 shall not affect any contract in existence on such date of 

7 enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out8 standing on such date of enactment. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21


                  SUMMARY OF 2005 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PROGRAM

The 2005 Executive Committee Incentive Program covers the Company's Chief
Executive Officer and his executive officer direct reports. Under the program,
bonuses granted to executive officers are determined by the Compensation
Committee based upon both qualitative and quantitative factors. The aggregate
amount of the pool that will become available for bonuses is determined based on
the Company's performance with respect to certain 2005 adjusted operating income
targets. Once the aggregate pool, if any, is determined, each executive officer
is eligible for a bonus based on a percentage of base salary that the
Compensation Committee has individually set for that executive officer. These
target bonus percentages range from 40% to 75% of base salary. The actual bonus
paid is then determined based on both achievement of financial goals and on the
executive officer's performance as measured against his or her objectives for
the year. Bonus awards may range from zero to 300% of the executive's target
bonus percentage.
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 Homeland Security

######  Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt LP, 780B Primos Avenue, Folcroft, PA 19032, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                         *http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​.*

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 15, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2013.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Malana, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

Dated: November 8, 2010.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2010-29169 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

August 24, 2020

Eric D. Schwartz, Esq.

Thomas W. Briggs, Jr., Esq.

Thomas P. Will, Esq.

MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNEL 

LLP

1201 North Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Richard I.G. Jones, Jr., Esq.

Michael W. McDermott, Esq.

David B. Anthony, Esq.

Peter C. McGivney, Esq.

BERGER HARRIS LLP

1105 North Market Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Searchlight CST, L.P. v. MediaMath Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 

2020-0652-SG

Dear Counsel:

I have the Defendant’s “Motion for an Order Sealing TRO Hearing.” The 

Motion seeks to place the entire hearing, scheduled for August 26, 2020, under seal. 

This Court does not conduct public hearings under seal. The concept is oxymoronic. 

To the extent that information necessarily disclosed in the TRO hearing scheduled 

for August 26, 2020 is subject to confidential treatment under Chancery Court Rule 

5.1 (or otherwise) the parties may so indicate and the public (if any) may be briefly 

excused from the hearing. The public transcript may be treated likewise. Otherwise, 

the Motion is denied.

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.
2

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III
§ 254.4 Application by an ITO. ( a ) *Application to FNS Regional Office.* An ITO which desires to participate in the Food Distribution Program shall file an application with the FNS Regional Office. The application shall also provide other information requested by FNS, including but not limited to, the tribe's qualification as a reservation as described in § 254.2, paragraph (f). Properly addressed applications shall be acknowledged by the FNS Regional Office in writing within five working days of receipt. FNS shall promptly advise ITOs of the need for additional information if an incomplete application is received.
( b ) *Tribal capability.* ( 1 ) In determining whether the ITO is potentially capable of effectively and efficiently administering a Food Distribution Program in an FNS Service area, allowing for fulfillment of that potential through training and technical assistance, FNS shall consult with other sources such as the BIA, and shall consider the ITO experience, if any, in operating other government programs, as well as its management and fiscal capabilities. Other factors for evaluation include, but are not limited to, the ITO's ability to: ( i ) Order and properly store commodities,
( ii ) Certify eligible households,
( iii ) Arrange for physical issuance of commodities,
( iv ) Keep appropriate records and submit required reports,
( v ) Budget and account for administrative funds,
( vi ) Determine the food preferences of households, and
( vii ) Conduct on-site reviews of certification and distribution procedures and practices.
( 2 ) FNS shall make a determination of potential ITO capability within 60 days of receipt of a completed application for the Food Distribution Program. FNS may, however, extend the period for determination of ITO capability if FNS finds that a given ITO's eligibility under § 254.3 is difficult to establish.
( 3 ) FNS shall, if requested by an ITO which has been determined by FNS to be potentially capable of administering a Food Distribution Program, provide the ITO's designees with appropriate training and technical assistance to prepare the ITO to take over program administration. In determining what training and technical assistance are necessary, FNS shall consult with the ITO and other sources, such as the BIA.
( c ) *Most capable tribe.* In cases where two or more applicant tribe(s) have overlapping boundaries, FNS shall select the tribe most capable of administering a FDP within that service area.
(The information collection requirements contained in paragaph (a) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0584-0316)
**Exhibit 32****Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer****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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report ofMeridian Bioscience, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the“Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of theirknowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   /s/ William J. Motto   William J. Motto  Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer  November 30, 2007     /s/ Melissa Lueke   Melissa Lueke  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  November 30, 2007
exv10w16



 






Exhibit 10.16




Director Fee Arrangements




     Fees for the non-employee directors of ITLA Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for 2005 have
been set by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors at $1,000 per Board or
board committee meeting attended, plus a monthly retainer of $2,250. In addition, Preston Martin,
the Chairman of the Audit Committee, will receive an annual retainer of $15,000 for his service in
that capacity. In the discretion of the Compensation Committee, individual directors may also
receive honorariums for additional work performed on behalf of the Company. The honorariums paid
to directors for 2004 were as follows: (i) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director Robert Reed for his
time and assistance with legislative matters; (ii) an honorarium of $5,000 to Director Jeffrey
Lipscomb for his time and assistance with compensation matters; (iii) an honorarium of $15,000
Director Hirotaka Oribe for his time and assistance with Japanese business matters and his
extensive work with the Executive Committee on lending matters; and (iv) an honorarium of $10,000
to Director Martin for his time and assistance with matters concerning the Company’s recently
executed agreement with Fannie Mae.
Exhibit 10.37




AMENDMENT
TO RETENTION AND SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS IS
AN AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) to that
certain retention and severance agreement (the “Agreement”) dated
as of the 11th day of
October, 2001, between MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”) and
Steven Reimer (“Executive”).




The
Company and Executive, for and in consideration of the promises, terms and
conditions contained herein, do hereby agree to make the following amendments to
the Agreement.





	1.  	
      Paragraph
      4(a) of the Agreement is amended as
follows:







4.
Severance
Benefit.




(a) You
are entitled to receive a severance benefit (the “Severance Benefit”) of one
times your salary immediately preceding your termination if your employment is
terminated (i) by the Company without Cause, (ii) due to your death or
Disability, or (iii) by you for Good Reason.





	2.  	
      Executive
      shall have no right to have paid or payable from any trust adopted by the
      Company, any portion of the Severance Benefit in excess of $150,000,
      unless and until all other employees entitled to receive payments from the
      trusts established by the Company for the purpose of paying severance
      benefits have been paid in full all of the severance benefits they are
      each entitled to.








	3.  	
      Except
      as amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement
      shall remain in full force and effect. Moreover, it is the intention of
      the parties hereto that if this Amendment is void, becomes voidable, or
      otherwise is or becomes unenforceable as drafted, then the Agreement shall
      continue in full force and effect, in accordance with the terms and
      conditions thereof immediately prior to the execution of this Amendment.
      This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts which
      together shall constitute one instrument, shall be governed by and
      construed in accordance with the laws and decisions of the State of New
      York applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein without
      giving effect to the principles of conflict of
laws.










IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have duly executed this Agreement as of this 25th day of
January, 2005.







MPOWER
COMMUNICATIONS CORP.






	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Rolla P. Huff	 	 	/s/ Steven Reimer
	
      

    	 	 	
      

    
	Rolla P. Huff
Chairman and CEO	 	 	
      Steven
      Reimer