alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 255 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 255

   To amend certain definitions contained in the Provo River Project 
Transfer Act for purposes of clarifying certain property descriptions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2013

 Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend certain definitions contained in the Provo River Project 
Transfer Act for purposes of clarifying certain property descriptions, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS IN PROVO RIVER 
              PROJECT TRANSFER ACT.

    (a) Pleasant Grove Property.--Section 2(4)(A) of the Provo River 
Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382; 118 Stat. 2212) is amended by 
striking ``of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``on which the 
parcel is conveyed under section 3(a)(2)''.
    (b) Provo Reservoir Canal.--Section 2(5) of the Provo River Project 
Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382; 118 Stat. 2212) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``canal, and any associated land, rights-
        of-way, and facilities'' and inserting ``water conveyance 
        facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal and 
        all associated bridges, fixtures, structures, facilities, 
        lands, interests in land, and rights-of-way held,'';
            (2) by inserting ``and forebay'' after ``Diversion Dam'';
            (3) by inserting ``near the Jordan Narrows to the point 
        where water is discharged to the Welby-Jacob Canal and the Utah 
        Lake Distributing Canal'' after ``Penstock''; and
            (4) by striking ``of enactment of this Act'' and inserting 
        ``on which the Provo Reservoir Canal is conveyed under section 
        3(a)(1)''.
                                 <all>
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

h1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143389

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143389 COA: 295324 LUIS ALBERTO QUINTANA, Oakland CC: 2008-224240-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 19, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Anastasios Glantzis, Appellant, v Felix Padilla, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 470]

In an action for an ejectment, the plaintiff appeals from an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated December 7, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant Felix Padilla, Sr., on the counterclaim seeking title to certain real property by adverse possession and against him, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the amended order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“To acquire title to real property by adverse possession, common law requires the possessor to establish that the character of the possession is ‘hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous’ ... for the statutory period of 10 years” *(Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp.,*88 NY2d 154, 159 [1996], quoting *Brand v Prince,*35 NY2d 634, 636 [1974]; *see Berry v Southard,*15 AD3d 516 [2005]; *Gore v Cambareri,*303 AD2d 551 [2003]; *Casini v Sea Gate Assn.,*262 AD2d 593 [1999]). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendant Felix Padilla, Sr., acquired title to the subject property by adverse possession *(see*RPAPL 511, 512; *Carrington v McNeil,*58 AD2d 719 [1977]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10-ll 
  
 Summary of 
 Director Compensation 
  
 Set forth below is a summary of the
compensation paid by MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the “Company”) to its directors. 
  
 Fees. Outside directors receive the following fees for their services on the Board of Directors and its Committees: 
  
 $12,000 annual Board retainer 
  
 $10,000 additional retainer for Chairman of the Board 
  
 $10,000 additional retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee and $5,000 additional retainer for each member of the Audit Committee 
  
 $5,000 additional retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee and
for Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee 
  
 $1,000 for each Board meeting and each Committee meeting attended 
  
 Equity Compensation. Annual equity compensation is granted as follows: 
  
 Upon initial election to the Board, outside directors who are not affiliated with Texas Pacific Group, Leonard Green & Partners and TCW/Crescent Mezzanine Management III LLC receive a grant of non-qualified stock
options to purchase 30,000 shares of MEMC common stock at an exercise price per share equal to the fair market value per share on the date of grant. These options vest ratably over three years. The grant of these stock options in the initial year of
service on the Board is in lieu of the award of restricted stock units (RSUs) described below. 
  
 Each year outside directors are awarded RSUs for shares of our common stock. The RSUs vest ratably over two years. Each year, RSUs are awarded in an
amount such that the number of underlying shares of MEMC common stock has a total value of between $55,000 and $60,000 on the date the award is granted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in 2003 we did not have a plan from which the RSUs could be
issued. As a result, at the 2004 annual stockholders’ meeting, we sought and obtained stockholder approval to amend our equity incentive plans to provide for grants of RSUs. On April 27, 2004, following stockholder approval of these amendments,
we awarded our outside directors who were serving on the Board in July 2003 RSUs to purchase 5,000 shares of common stock as compensation for service during 2003. Fifty percent (50%) of these RSUs vested in July 2004 and the remaining fifty percent
(50%) will vest in July 2005. In addition, on July 26, 2004, we awarded our outside directors RSUs to purchase 6,800 shares of common stock. Fifty percent (50%) of these RSUs will vest in July 2005 and the remaining fifty percent (50%) will vest in
July 2006. Mr. Chapus declined all RSUs awarded to him in 2004.
§ 3560.460 Double damages. ( a ) *Action to recover assets or income.* ( 1 ) The Agency may request to the Attorney General to bring an action in a United States district court to recover any assets or income used by any person in violation of the provisions of a loan made by the Agency under this section or in violation of any applicable statute or regulation.
( 2 ) For the purposes of this section, a use of assets or income in violation of the applicable loan, statute, or regulation includes any use for which the documentation in the books and accounts does not establish that the use was made for a reasonable operating expense or necessary repair of the project or for which the documentation has not been maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Agency and in reasonable condition for proper audit.
( 3 ) For the purposes of this section, the term “person” means: ( i ) Any individual or entity that borrows funds in accordance with programs authorized by this section;
( ii ) Any individual or entity holding 25 percent or more interest in any entity that the Agency funds in accordance with programs authorized by this section; and
( iii ) Any officer, director, or partner of an entity that borrows funds in accordance with programs authorized by this section.
( b ) *Amount recoverable.* ( 1 ) In any judgment favorable to the United States entered under this section, the Attorney General may recover double the value of the assets and income of the project that the court determines to have been used in violation of the provisions of a loan made by the Agency under this section or any applicable statute or regulation, plus all costs related to the actions, including reasonable attorney and auditing fees.
( 2 ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Agency may use amounts recovered under this section for activities authorized under this section and such funds must remain available for such use until expended.
( c ) *Time limitation.* Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an action under this section may be commenced at any time during the six-year period beginning on the date that the Agency discovered or should have discovered the violation of the provisions of this section or any related statutes or regulations.
( d ) *Continued availability of other remedies.* The remedy provided in this section is in addition to and not in substitution of any other remedies available to the Agency or the United States.
#### REPORTERS’ ASS’N v. SUN PRINTING & PUBLISHING ASS’N.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by the Reporters’ Association against the Sun Printing & Publishing Association.

No opinion. Motion granted. Question certified as stated in order. Order filed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.44  


 
  VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED
  SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY    
    


        Effective as of March 14, 2005, the annual cash compensation for non-employee directors serving on the Board of Directors includes an annual
retainer of $25,000, payable in quarterly installments, plus $2,500 for each Board meeting attended and $500 for each committee meeting attended on a regular Board meeting day. If a committeee meeting
is held on a day other than a regular Board meeting day, the meeting fee is $1,000. Meetings held by conference call are compensated at the rate of $375 per meeting. The Chair of the Corporate
Governance and Nominating Committee receives a $20,000 annual retainer. The Chair of the Audit Committee receives a $15,000 annual retainer. The Chair of the Management Development and Compensation
Committee receives a $10,000 annual retainer. 


        Under
the 1996 Stock and Option Plan, each non-employee director, upon initial election or appointment to the Board, receives a non-qualified option to purchase
20,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the Common Stock's then fair market value. Those options vest quarterly over a four-year period from the date of grant, based on
continued service on the Board. Each non-employee director in office on June 1 of any year also receives a non-qualified option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock
under the 1996 Stock and Option Plan, exercisable immediately at a price equal to the fair market value per share of the Company's Common Stock on the date of grant. 











QuickLinks


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 21 
<TABLE>
                 APPLIED RESEARCH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<CAPTION>
                                                           Percentage of
                     Incorporated                        voting securities
                       under the                             owned by
 Name                  laws of            Parent         immediate parent 
-------------------  ------------    -----------------   ----------------
<S>                   <C>            <C>                         <C>
Applied Research
Corporation           Colorado       Registrant                 

Applied Research                     Applied Research
of Maryland, Inc.     Maryland       Corporation                 100%
                                     
ARSoftware                           Applied Research
Corporation           Maryland       Corporation                 100%

ARInternet                           Applied Research
Corporation           Maryland       Corporation                 95%

</TABLE>

Note:  The subsidiaries of the Registrant as of May 31, 1997, are
       included in the consolidated financial statements of the
       Registrant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Baker, 7:20cv39

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 9

This Order addresses Defendants’ objections and counter-designations to 

Plaintiff’s affirmative deposition designations and Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendants’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Cimino, Mike 12/11/2019

This Order also addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Babeu, Lorraine (2020-03-10)

2. Battler, Leanne (2020-09-10)

SO ORDERED, on this 11th day of June, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00039-MCR-GRJ Document 166 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 1
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 Quarterly Report of Keyuan Petrochemiclas, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Chunfeng Tao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)T he information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 Date:  August 16, 2010
 
 /s/ Chunfeng Tao
 Chunfeng Tao
 Chief Executive Officer & Chairman
Editorial Note on Part 3403
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3403 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3403.5 Program solicitation. ( a ) *Phase I.* A program solicitation requesting Phase I proposals will be prepared each fiscal year in which funds are made available for this purpose. This solicitation will contain information sufficient to enable eligible applicants to prepare grant proposals and will include descriptions of specific research topic areas which the Department will support during the fiscal year involved. A notice of solicitation, and the entire contents of the program solicitation will be published, at a minimum, on the agency's Web site.
( b ) *Phase II.* For each fiscal year in which funds are made available for this purpose, the Department will send correspondence requesting Phase II proposals from the Phase I grantees eligible to apply for Phase II funding in that fiscal year. The correspondence will contain information sufficient to enable eligible applicants to prepare grant proposals.
Executive Incentive Compensation Program



 EXHIBIT #10.20 
  
 2004 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM 
  
 An Executive Incentive Compensation Program (“Program”) was implemented in January of 2003. This Program pays incentives to the
members of the Executive Management team for Camden National Corporation (the “Company”), Camden National Bank, UnitedKingfield Bank and Acadia Trust N.A. This Program is an integral part of an overall management strategy that enables the
CEO of the Company to encourage executives to reach the fiscal targets in strategic and operating plans. 
  
 The incentive is based on net income before taxes (NIBT). The Program is set up so the incentive pool is added to target NIBT, so the incentive pool is funded through increasing NIBT above the target level. This
ensures the shareholders that they receive the results that were originally planned. The Program will pay out incrementally when the named company hits 96% of budgeted NIBT. (No incentive is paid if NIBT does not reach 96%.) The incentives increase
incrementally up to 110% of NIBT where it is capped. Each month an updated grid is produced showing current and projected NIBT results for each company. 
  
 Each executive has a targeted incentive percentage based on that position’s contribution to the overall results of the Company. An executive must have an overall
satisfactory performance rating on their individual performance and goals before that executive is eligible to participate in the Program. Each executive’s payout will be based 60% on the named company’s financial results (per the model)
and 40% on each individual executive’s attainment of their own goals as measured by the CEO of the Company. 
  
 After the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm reviews the year-end financial results, and the CEO and Compensation Committee have reviewed each
individual’s performance, the incentive amount will be distributed. 
  
 The
Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify the Executive Incentive Compensation Program if unexpected anomalies result during the application of the pre-defined grid.
Case No. 3:20cv5532-MCR-EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICHIE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5532-MCR-EMT

ANDREW SAUL, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 7, 

2021. ECF No. 26. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

26, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05532-MCR-EMT Document 27 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:20cv5532-MCR-EMT

2. Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $2,733.13 for time expended 

by his counsel in representing him before the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (EAJA). The fee award 

is subject to an offset to satisfy any qualifying outstanding debt Plaintiff may owe to 

the United States.

4. If Plaintiff receives all or any portion of the EAJA fee award, it is to be 

mailed to him in care of his attorney, Walter A. Blakeney, Post Office Box 311167, 

Enterprise, AL 36331-1167.

5. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of August 2021.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05532-MCR-EMT Document 27 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: May 11, 2006



| |  |                                                                         
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ RICHARD HEYSE                                                       
| |  | Richard Heyse                                                           
| |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.