alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
14.201-8 Price related factors.       The factors set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection may be applicable in evaluation of bids for award and shall be included in the solicitation when applicable. (See 14.201-5(c).)                                       (a)                    						            Foreseeable costs or delays to the Government resulting from such factors as differences in inspection, locations of supplies, and transportation. If bids are on an f.o.b. origin basis (see 47.303 and 47.305), transportation costs to the designated points shall be considered in determining the lowest cost to the Government.                                          (b)                    						            Changes made, or requested by the bidder, in any of the provisions of the invitation for bids, if the change does not constitute a ground for rejection under 14.404.                                          (c)                    						            Advantages or disadvantages to the Government that might result from making more than one award (see 14.201-6(q)). The contracting officer shall assume, for the purpose of making multiple awards, that $500 would be the administrative cost to the Government for issuing and administering each contract awarded under a solicitation. Individual awards shall be for the items or combinations of items that result in the lowest aggregate cost to the Government, including the assumed administrative costs.                                          (d)                    						            Federal, state, and local taxes (see part  29).                                          (e)                    						            Origin of supplies, and, if foreign, the application of the Buy American statute or any other prohibition on foreign purchases (see part  25).    **Parent topic:** 14.201 Preparation of invitations for bids.
Summary Sheet for Executive Cash Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.7 
 SUMMARY SHEET FOR EXECUTIVE CASH COMPENSATION 
 The following table sets forth the current annual salaries provided
to the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and other named executive officers. The annual salaries have not changed in 2009. 
  

				
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Current Annual
Salaries
	 David S. Haffner, President & Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	900,000
	 Matthew C. Flanigan, Senior Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	395,000
	 Karl G. Glassman, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	675,000
	 Paul R. Hauser, Senior Vice President, President – Residential Furnishings
	  	$	320,600
	 Joseph D. Downes, Jr., Senior Vice President, President – Industrial Materials
	  	$	291,800

 The executive officers will also be eligible to receive a cash award under the Company’s 2009 Key Officers
Incentive Plan (filed March 26, 2009 as Appendix B to the Company’s Proxy Statement) in accordance with the Award Formula for 2009 (filed April 1, 2009 as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K). An executive’s cash award is
calculated by multiplying his annual salary at the end of the year by a percentage (“Target Percentage”) set by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board (“Committee”), then applying an award formula adopted by the
Committee for that year. The Target Percentages applicable to the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and other named executive officers are shown in the following table. The Target Percentages have not changed in
2009. 
  

				
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Current Target
Percentages	 
	 David S. Haffner, President & Chief Executive Officer
	  	80	%
	 Matthew C. Flanigan, Senior Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	60	%
	 Karl G. Glassman, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	70	%
	 Paul R. Hauser, Senior Vice President, President – Residential Furnishings
	  	50	%
	 Joseph D. Downes, Jr., Senior Vice President, President – Industrial Materials
	  	50	%

 Individual Performance Goals. An executive’s cash award under the Award Formula for 2009 is based, in
part, on individual performance goals established outside the 2009 Key Officers Incentive Plan (20% relative weight). The assessment of most of these individual performance goals is inherently subjective and qualitative. The types of goals may
include, among other things, improvement of strategic planning processes, implementation of human capital initiatives, development of new products, implementation of sales and operations planning processes, institution or acceleration of continuous
improvement programs, and the timely remediation of deficiencies.
ex10_57.htm








 


EXHIBIT 10.57




 

PROMISSORY NOTE

 

March 12, 2009

 

$12,910,386.14

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS, a real estate investment trust organized under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal office and place of business in Houston, Texas (the "Maker") HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to the order of RELIANCE
TRUST COMPANY, Trustee of the TRUST UNDER THE WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN,  SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AND RETIREMENT BENEFIT RESTORATION PLAN (the "Holder"), the principal sum of TWELVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX AND 14/100 DOLLARS
($12,910,386.14), with interest on the outstanding principal balance hereof at the rate of seven and five one-hundredths percent (7.5%) per annum, as set forth below.

 

The entire principal unpaid balance of this Note shall be due and payable one (1) year from the date of this Note.

 

Interest on the principal balance of this Note shall accrue from the date hereof until this Note is paid in full. Interest shall be payable annually on each anniversary of this Note.  Any past due principal and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, interest, shall bear interest at the rate of  seven and five one-hundredths
percent (7.5%) and shall be payable on demand.

 

Payments of principal and interest shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America in immediately available funds.

 

This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without premium or penalty.

 

The occurrence of the following event shall be an "Event of Default" hereunder:

 

Default in payment of any installment of principal or interest of this Note as the same becomes due, if such default is not cured within ten (10) days from the mailing of written notice by certified or registered mail to Maker at Maker's principal place of business or such other address as Maker supplies Holder in writing.

 

Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, this Note and all accrued, unpaid interest hereon shall immediately become due and payable without further notice or demand, and Holder may exercise any and all remedies available with respect to such Event of Default.

 

Maker and any and all endorsers severally waive grace, demand presentment for payment, notice of dishonor or default or intent to accelerate, protest and notice of protest and diligence in collecting and bringing of suit against any party hereto, and agree to all renewals, extensions or partial payments hereon and to any release or substitution
of security therefor, in whole or in part, with or without notice, before or after maturity.

 

This Note shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and applicable federal law.

 




	
MAKER:
	  
	  	  
	
WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS

	  	  
	
By:
	
/s/ Stephen C. Richter

	  	
Stephen C. Richter, Authorized Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1



CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Denise Smith, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Silver Pearl Enterprises, Inc.



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: October 19, 2007















/s/ Denise Smith







Denise Smith









President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 22, 2016 

# Order

January 22, 2016

15 2831 ( 3 )

IN RE LISA O

. GORCYCA , JUDGE

6 th CIRCUIT COURT

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

____________________________________________/ SC: 15 2831

JTC Formal Complaint 9 8

On order of the C ourt

, the request by the Judicial Tenure Commission for the

appointment of a master is considered, and the Honorable Daniel P. Ryan is hereby

appointed master to hear Formal Complaint No. 9 8

.
22.1103 Policy, procedures, and solicitation

provision.

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting

officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed

$750,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional

employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan

setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the

contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional

compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in

establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional

employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an

award.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.11 - Professional Employee Compensation
9.408 [Reserved]

Parent topic: Subpart 9.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility
#### LUDLOW, Respondent, v. WOODWARD, Appellant

(Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by "Samuel Ludlow, Jr., against Rignal D. Woodward. W. E. Kisselburgh, for appellant D. T. Davis, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Appeal from decision dismissed, with costs. Order filed.
# L_2015029EN.01001601.xml

| 5.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 29/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 29/16

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 780/2013 of 14 August 2013 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 206/2010 laying down lists of third countries, territories or parts thereof authorised for the introduction into the European Union of certain animals and fresh meat and the veterinary certification requirements

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 219 of 15 August 2013
  )

On page 9 in the Annex, model veterinary certificate RUM-A, point II.1.6 ‘Rift valley fever’, third section, last line:

for:

‘... within 10 days of dispatch to the Union.’,

read:

‘... within 10 days prior to dispatch to the Union.’

---
(51 Misc. 668)

#### WEILLER v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 14, 1906.)

1. Appeal—Record—Evidence.

Where the trial court dismissed the complaint after the defendant had introduced some evidence, the defendant’s evidence should be included in the record on appeal.

2. Carriers—Injuries to Passenger—Question fob Jury.

In an action for injuries to a passenger in alighting from a car, evidence *field*to require submission of the ease to the jury.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.

Action by Annie Weiller against the New York City Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, DUGRO, and DOWLING, JJ.

Emanuel J. Livingston, for appellant.

James L- Quackenbush, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It is claimed by appellant that when plaintiff rested defendant moved to dismiss, that the court reserved decision, that thereupon defendant called a witness who gave some testimony, and that thereafter the trial justice dismissed the complaint. The testimony, if any, of the witness called by defendant, does not appear in the record; but there is in the record a statement by the justice that the dismissal was before “the completion of testimony for the defendant.” The testimony of this witness, if there was any, should have appeared in the record, as plaintiff was entitled to have it considered by the justice in passing upon the motion to dismiss; for it was the case as it stood when the motion was granted that should have been considered upon the dismissal. It may well have been that the testimony of a witness called by defendant aided plaintiff in making out her case.

It seems that the dismissal cannot be sustained upon the evidence offered in plaintiff’s behalf. The witness Whim testified:

> “I noticed she motioned the conductor to stop the ear, and he rang the bell, and then the car stopped, and she put one foot on the step and one foot on the street, and before she had a chance to get off the car started, and she was dragged about half a block.”

This evidence, with that of the plaintiff, was sufficient to have required the submission of the case to the jury.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
98-1097.

#### First Bank of Marietta v. Roslovic & Partners, Inc.

Franklin App. Nos. 97APE09-1199 and 97APE09-1201.

F.E, Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73034-73035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29967]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended 
by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments 
on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, 
for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to 
be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be postmarked on or before December 20, 2010. Address 
written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be 
examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce in Room 3720.
    Docket Number: 10-065. Applicant: Vanderbilt University, 2201 West 
End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37235. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: The instrument 
will be used to support general biological investigations into 
structure function relationships. Key capabilities of the instrument 
include extended

[[Page 73035]]

variable pressure capability, low kV and Schottky field emission 
source, secondary and backscatter detection, and a temperature control 
Peltier stage. Justification for Duty-Free Entry: There are no 
instruments of the same general category manufactured in the United 
States. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: October 27, 
2010.
    Docket Number: 10-066. Applicant: Vanderbilt University, 2201 West 
End Avenue, Nashville, TN 37235. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: JEOL Limited, Japan. Intended Use: The instrument will be 
used to study cement-based composites, environmental materials, and 
geological samples for their microstructure, phase characteristics, and 
interfacial processes. This instrument can image and analyze samples 
that are completely wet while carrying the humidity and pressure in the 
specimen chamber. This instrument also offers a WetSTEM detector for 
imaging completely wet samples in both bright field (BF) and dark field 
(DF) modes without special sample handling/encapsulation. Justification 
for Duty-Free Entry: There are no instruments of the same general 
category manufactured in the United States. Application accepted by 
Commissioner of Customs: October 27, 2010.

     Dated: November 22, 2010.
Gregory Campbell,
Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-29967 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 5:87cr5023/RV

JAMES WILLIAM MUNSON,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the court on Defendant’s notice of appeal and motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal (Docs. 146, 147). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a) of

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, this court hereby certifies that this appeal is not taken in

good faith, and Defendant is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The reasons for

this court’s decision are outlined in this court’s order dated May 8, 2008 (Doc. 145).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 147) is DENIED.

Defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing

of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June 2008.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:87-cr-05023-RV-EMT Document 149 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 5:03cr13-RH

vs. Case No. 5:05cv67-RH/WCS

LYVIA HILL,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Defendant filed a motion to supplement. Doc. 253. The undersigned prepared

and signed an order denying the motion on July 28, 2005. For whatever reason, that

order does not appear on the docket. In the meantime, the Government filed a second

motion for extension of time, which notes the motion to supplement. Doc. 254. This

order addresses both motions. 

Defendant's motion to supplement is denied. As explained in the order of May 4,

2005, an amended pleading should be filed in its entirety with all amendments

incorporated therein pursuant to Local Rule 15.1. Doc. 249, p. 1. That order allowed

one supplement, but Defendant may not continue presenting her claims in piecemeal

fashion contrary to the rules of this court. After the Government's response is filed,

Case 5:03-cr-00013-RS Document 255 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case Nos. 5:03cr13-RH and 5:05cv67-RH/WCS

Defendant may make her argument in reply within the time set forth below, or file a

motion to amend at that time. A motion to amend must comply with Rule 15.1, which

provides in relevant part that "a copy of the proposed amended pleading in its entirety

shall accompany the motion" to amend, and that "[m]atters not set forth in the amended

pleading are deemed to have been abandoned." 

The time for the Government's response (and any argument by Defendant) is set

forth below. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion to supplement (doc. 253) is DENIED.

2. The Government's second motion for extension (doc. 254) is GRANTED. The

time is extended to August 12, 2005.

6. Defendant shall file a reply, if desired, no later than September 12, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED on August 4, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cr-00013-RS Document 255 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
118 STAT. 2298 PUBLIC LAW 108–408—OCT. 30, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5147:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–408

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 23055

Sherman Way in West Hills, California, as the ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

23055 Sherman Way in West Hills, California, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Evan Asa

Ashcraft Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 30, 2004.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 5147]
#### § 3430.501 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to make competitive grants for integrated, multifunctional agricultural research, extension, and education activities.