alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.22
 
 KB HOME
 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 (as amended and restated on October 2, 2008)
 Purpose
 Definitions.
         - 1 -




---



##### 



Wall Street Journal
       - 2 -




---



##### 



Administration.
    - 3 -




---



##### 



Shares Subject to the Plan.
     - 4 -




---



##### 



Eligibility and Extent of Participation.
   Grants of Options and Limited Stock Appreciation Rights.
 Grant of Options.
 Grant of Limited Stock Appreciation Rights in the Event of Change of Ownership.
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Exercise Price.
    Exercise.
 - 6 -




---



##### 



Transferability of Options.
 Evidence of Grant; Other Terms and Conditions.
 - 7 -




---



##### 



Performance Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Awards.
 Performance Stock Awards.
 Restricted Stock Awards.
  - 8 -




---



##### 



Settlement of Awards. th th
 Rights with Respect to Shares.
 - 9 -




---



##### 



Escrow.
 Restrictive Legends.
 Designation of Beneficiaries.
 Discretionary Adjustments.
 Stock Unit Awards
 - 10 -




---



##### 



Grant of Stock Unit Awards.
 Transferability of Stock Units.
 Settlement of Stock Units. th th
 Special Rules.
  - 11 -




---



##### 



- 12 -




---



##### 



Delivery of Shares.
 Financing and Withholding.
 Withholding of Taxes.
 Financing.
 Withholding of Shares.
   Amendments, Suspension or Discontinuance.
 - 13 -




---



##### 



Term of Plan.
 Effective Date.
 Expiration Date.
 Option Grants by Subsidiaries.
 Liability of the Company.
 The Non-Issuance of Shares.
 Tax Consequences.
 Non-Exclusivity of the Plan.
 - 14 -




---



##### 



Section 409A.
    - 15 -




---



##### 



- 16 -
Exhibit32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report onForm 10-Q of James River Group, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) for the period endingMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), the undersigned, J. AdamAbram, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael T. Oakes, Chief FinancialOfficer, of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

|  | /s/ J. AdamAbram                                        J.Adam AbramChief Executive Officer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: May11,  2006

|  | /s/ Michael T.Oakes                                       MichaelT. OakesChief Financial Officer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**I, G. Gary Yetman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Coleman Cable, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.       Date:August 9, 2006   **/s/ G. Gary Yetman**             **Chief Executive Officer and President**
#### § 301.74-1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart.

*Administrator.* The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

*Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture.

*Departmental permit.* A document issued by the Administrator in which he or she affirms that interstate movement of the regulated article identified on the document is for scientific or experimental purposes and that the regulated article is eligible for interstate movement in accordance with § 301.74-4.

*Infestation (infested, infected).* The presence of plum pox or circumstances or symptoms that makes it reasonable to believe that plum pox is present.

*Inspector.* Any employee of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, or other person authorized by the Administrator to enforce this subpart.

*Interstate.* From any State into or through any other State.

*Moved (move, movement).* Shipped, offered for shipment, received for transportation, transported, carried, or allowed to be moved, shipped, transported, or carried.

*Person.* Any association, company, corporation, firm, individual, joint stock company, partnership, society, or other entity.

*Plant Protection and Quarantine.* Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture.

*Plum pox.* A plant disease caused by plum pox potyvirus that can affect many *Prunus* (stone fruit) species, including, but not limited to, almond, apricot, nectarine, peach, plum, and sweet and tart cherry. The strain of plum pox in Pennsylvania does not affect cherry trees.

*Quarantined area.* Any State, or any portion of a State, listed in accordance with § 301.74-3(a) or otherwise designated as a quarantined area in accordance with § 301.74-3(b).

*Regulated article.* Any article identified as a regulated article under § 301.74-2 as follows: listed as of January 30, 2023, added in accordance with § 301.74-2(a)(1) and (2), or otherwise designated in accordance with § 301.74-2(b), based on its susceptibility to the form or strain of plum pox detected in the quarantined area.

*State.* The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any State, territory, or possession of the United States.

[74 FR 27073, June 8, 2009, as amended at 87 FR 80008, Dec. 29, 2022]
Case 1:94-cr-01004-MP-AK   Document 70   Filed 04/18/08   Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2540 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire psychiatrists. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. ROONEY, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. 

CASSIDY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. CHABOT, and Ms. 

DUCKWORTH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire 

psychiatrists. 

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 ‘‘Expedited Hiring for 

5 VA Trained Psychiatrists Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2540 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF PSYCHIATRISTS BY VETERANS 

2 HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 74 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7406 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 7406A. Appointment of certain psychiatrists who 

7 complete residencies 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subject to subsection (b), the 

9 Secretary may appoint, without regard to civil service or 

10 classification laws a psychiatrist who completes a resi11 dency under section 7406 of this title to a position under 

12 section 7401 or 7405 immediately after such residency, 

13 if the psychiatrist meets the qualifications established in 

14 regulations prescribed by the Secretary for such position. 

15 ‘‘(2) The Secretary may begin the process of appoint16 ing a psychiatrist under paragraph (1) before the psychia17 trist completes a residency. 

18 ‘‘(b) POSITIONS PERMITTED.—The Secretary may 

19 appoint a psychiatrist under subsection (a) if the position 

20 to which the psychiatrist is appointed has been unfilled 

21 for not less than 35 days as of the date of the appoint22 ment.’’. 

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2540 IH

1 after the item relating to section 7406 the following new 

2 item: 

‘‘7406A. Appointment of certain psychiatrists who complete residencies.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSystem development and early biological tests in NASA's biomass production chamberThe Biomass Production Chamber at Kennedy Space Center was constructed to conduct large scale plant growth studies for NASA's CELSS program. Over the past four years, physical systems and computer control software have been continually upgraded and the degree of atmospheric leakage from the chamber has decreased from about 40 to 5 percent of the total volume per day. Early tests conducted with a limited degree of closure showed that total crop (wheat) growth from the best trays was within 80 percent of reported optimal yields for similar light levels. Yields from subsequent tests under more tightly closed conditions have not been as good--up to only 65 percent of optimal yields. Yields appear to have decreased with increasing closure, yet potential problems exist in cultural techniques and further studies are warranted. With the ability to tightly seal the chamber, quantitative data were gathered on CO2 and water exchange rates. Results showed that stand photosynthesis and transpiration reached a peak near 25 days after planting, soon after full vegetative ground cover was established. In the final phase of testing when atmospheric closure was the highest, ethylene gas levels in the chamber rose from about 10 to nearly 120 ppb. Evidence suggests that the ethylene originated from the wheat plants themselves and may have caused an epinastic rolling of the leaves, but no apparent detrimental effects on whole plant function.Document ID19900016140Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWheeler, R. M.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Mackowiak, C. L.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Dreschel, T. W.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Sager, J. C.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Prince, R. P.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Knott, W. M.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Hinkle, C. R.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Strayer, R. F.*(Bionetics Corp. Cocoa Beach, FL., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1990Subject CategoryLife Sciences (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:103494NASA-TM-103494Accession Number90N25456Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016140.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
*Monday, October 19, 1998*

MOTION DOCKET

87-1674.

#### State v. Broom.

Cuyahoga App. No. 51237. On March 1,1990, this court stayed the execution of sentence in this cause pending exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies. Appellee has moved that this court set a date for execution of sentence. It appearing to the court that all matters have been disposed of in case No. 87-1674, appellant’s direct appeal of his conviction, and case No. 98-1252, appellant’s post-conviction appeal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that the stay of execution entered in this cause on March 1,1990, be and is hereby revoked.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED by this court that said sentence be carried in the execution by the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or, in his absence, by the Deputy Warden on Tuesday, the 19th day of January, 1999, in accordance with the statutes so provided.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certified copy of this entry and a warrant under the seal of this court be duly certified to the Warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and that said Warden shall make due return thereof to the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.
Case 1:03-cr-00053-MP   Document 33   Filed 09/20/07   Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

619/14 

CA 13-00593 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

CARING ENTERPRISES, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS 

HEALTH FORCE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (STEVEN E. PEIPER OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BROWN CHIARI LLP, LANCASTER (MICHAEL R. DRUMM OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M.

Curran, J.), entered January 3, 2013. The judgment, rendered upon a

nonjury trial, declared that defendant is obligated to defend and

indemnify plaintiff in an underlying action. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of withdrawal of

appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on July 9, 2015,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: August 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 29.3012 Color symbols.

As applied to Burley, single color symbols are as follows: L—buff, F—tan, R—red, D—dark red, K—variegated, M—mixed color, V—greenish, and G—green.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959, as amended at 35 FR 10490, June 27, 1970. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
(March 9, 1967)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard Arice Harvell, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which denied, without a hearing, a *coram nobis*application in which is sought a hearing as to the voluntariness of written statements made by defendant on Fovember 24, 1948 and December 13, 1948, termed by him *“*confessions ”, received in evidence on his trial, which resulted in a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree. Appellant’s brief raises no objection regarding his statement of Fovember 24, 1948. With respect to the statement of December 13, 1948, however, which was received over proper *872and timely objection, defendant is entitled, under *People*v. *Huntley*(15 N Y 2d 72), to a hearing upon the issue of its voluntariness. The *voir dire*examination conducted upon the trial, in the presence of the jury, followed by an evidentiary ruling admitting the statement in evidence, and ultimately by a charge in which the court stated that it “ admitted the confession as a voluntary confession, since there was no evidence to indicate that it was in any manner, other than voluntary ”, were not the equivalents of, and do not satisfy the procedural and other requirements imposed by the *Huntley*decision *(supra)*with respect -to confessions received over objection on trials had prior thereto. Order reversed, on -the law and the facts, application granted and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum decision. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds,-Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum *Per Curiam.*
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-499

____________

PRESSLEY BERNARD ALSTON,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

____________

No. SC17-983

____________

PRESSLEY BERNARD ALSTON,

Petitioner,

vs.

JULIE L. JONES, etc.,

Respondent.

[May 17, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Pressley Bernard Alston’s appeal of the circuit court’s 

order denying Alston’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 3.851 and Alston’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have
- 2 -

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9) Fla. Const. We withdraw the opinion issued 

on January 22, 2018, and substitute this opinion in its place. 

Alston seeks relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision 

in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. 

State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). This Court 

stayed Alston’s appeal and consideration of his habeas petition pending the 

disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 

513 (2017). After this Court decided Hitchcock, Alston responded to this Court’s 

order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in both 

cases. Then, after this Court decided State v. Silvia, 239 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 2018), 

Alston responded to this Court’s order to show cause why Silvia should not be 

dispositive in both cases. 

After reviewing Alston’s responses to the orders to show cause, as well as 

the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Alston’s valid waiver of 

postconviction proceedings and counsel in 2003 precludes him from claiming a 

right to relief under Hurst. See Silvia, 239 So. 3d 349; Alston v. State, 894 So. 2d 

46 (Fla. 2004). Moreover, Alston’s sentence of death became final in 1999. 

Alston v. State, 723 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1998). Thus, even if Alston’s postconviction 

waiver did not preclude him from raising a Hurst claim, Hurst would not apply 

retroactively to Alston’s sentence of death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. 
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief and deny Alston’s habeas 

petition.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., 

concur.

CANADY, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS, J., dissents. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

CANADY, J., concurring in result. 

I would base the denial of relief to Alston on my view that Hurst should not

be given retroactive application. See Mosley v. State, 209 So. 3d 1248, 1285-91

(Fla. 2016) (Canady, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County,

Russell Healey, Judge - Case No. 161995CF005326AXXXMA

And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus

Robert A. Norgard of Norgard, Norgard, & Chastang, Bartow, Florida, and Billy 

H. Nolas, Chief, Capital Habeas Unit, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee, 

Florida,

for Appellant/Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer L. Keegan, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Appellee/Respondent