alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021410EN.01019801.xml

| 18.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 410/198 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 410/198

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/771 of 21 January 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down specific criteria and conditions for the checks of documentary accounts in the framework of official controls in organic production and the official controls of groups of operators

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 165, 11 May 2021
  )

On page 26, in Article 1(4), point (d):

for:

| ‘(d) | the information referred to in the first paragraph of point 2.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

the information referred to in the first paragraph of point 2.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’,

read:

| ‘(d) | the information referred to in point 2.1.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(d)

the information referred to in point 2.1.1 of Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2018/848;’.

---
exv10w15



 








Exhibit 10.15




American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.

Non-employee Director Compensation Summary




In July 2004, the Board of Directors of American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. approved the
following compensation schedule for non-employee directors:




Annual Retainer




We pay our non-employee directors an annual retainer for serving on the Board and Committees as
follows:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Board member
	 	$	25,000	 
	Audit Committee chair
	 	$	10,000	 
	Audit Committee member
	 	$	7,500	 
	Compensation Committee chair
	 	$	5,000	 
	Compensation Committee member
	 	$	2,500	 
	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee member
	 	$	2,500	 






Stock Options




Our current compensation program also provides for the grant of stock options to our non-employee
directors. In July 2004, we granted each of the following non-employee directors an option to
purchase the indicated number of shares of our common stock (as
adjusted for our stock split which is effective March 21, 2005):




	 	 	 	 	 
	Richard B. Emmitt
	 	 	40,000	 
	Thomas E. Timbie
	 	 	40,000	 
	Christopher H. Porter, Ph.D.
	 	 	40,000	 
	Elizabeth H. Weatherman
	 	 	40,000	 
	Albert Jay Graf
	 	 	20,000	*












	*	 	Mr. Graf’s 2004 option covered a fewer number of shares because in September 2001 we granted Mr.
Graf an option to purchase 200,000 shares of our common stock, which had not fully vested.





Beginning in 2005, each non-employee director who is reelected as a director at our annual meeting
of stockholders, or that continues to serve as a director after such meeting, will be granted an
additional option to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock. The options have an exercise
price equal to the fair market value of the shares on the date of grant. The options vest over a
three-year period from the date of grant, as long as the non-employee director continues to serve
on the board, and become immediately exercisable in full upon a change in control. The options
expire ten years from the date of grant.




Expenses




In addition, we reimburse our non-employee directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred
in connection with attending regularly scheduled meetings.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLES JUNIOR BARBER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-185-TKW/MJF

MEDICAL,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 18). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This action is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00185-TKW-MJF Document 19 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:98cr01-RH

 4:98cr82-RH

LEONARD MARTIN,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER REJECTING THE PURPORTED PLEA IN ABSENTIA

A petition was filed on March 27, 2012, charging the defendant Leonard 

Martin with violating the conditions of supervised release. A warrant was issued 

but apparently has not been served. Mr. Martin apparently is in state custody.

Mr. Martin has mailed directly to the judge—rather than to the clerk of court 

as appropriate—a document denominated a “plea in absentia.” As a matter of 

discretion, I decline to accept such a plea. The petition will be addressed in the 

Case 4:98-cr-00082-RH-CAS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:98cr1-RH and 4:98cr82-RH

ordinary course after service of the warrant.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk must docket the “plea in absentia.” The plea is rejected. 

SO ORDERED on March 5, 2014.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cr-00082-RH-CAS Document 26 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00043-MP -GRJ

FREDDIE LEE MURPHY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 565, Motion Requesting Copies by the United

States of America. The government requests copies of all exhibits offered into evidence during

the Violation of Supervised Release hearing on May 3, 2011. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Clerk is directed to provide the government copies of all exhibits offered into

evidence during the hearing on May 3, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 566 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2



Certification of Principal Financial
Officer

Pursuant to SEC Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)



I, Philip MacNeill, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of PharmAthene, Inc.; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:  November 22, 2016 | /s/ Philip MacNeill                                                   
|------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          | Name: Philip MacNeill                                                 
|                          | Title: Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurerand Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          1,964
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                    5,541
<INVENTORY>                                    55,542
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              121,396
<PP&E>                                        368,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                140,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                395,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          78,048
<BONDS>                                       127,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          344
<OTHER-SE>                                    153,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  395,417
<SALES>                                       257,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              257,459
<CGS>                                         206,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 206,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             8,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    8,468
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.55


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7138

SOLOMON SMITH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1097) Submitted: February 16, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Solomon Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Solomon Smith, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Angelone , No. CA-97-1097 (E.D. Va., July 24, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### KEYES, Appellant, v. SMITH et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 23, 1906.)

Action by George J. Keyes against C. Walter Smith and another.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

NASH, J., not voting.
May-10 Jul-11 Mar-12

Revised Revised Revised 

Budgeted Budgeted Actual Budgeted Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual Bu

09-10 09-10 09-10 10-11 10-11 10-11 11-12 11-12 

TOTAL PROG COST 9,983,350 9,983,350 8,252,716 9,172,132 8,943,046 8,466,373 9,327,735 8,676,137 8,7

Other Non-Recurrent 2,498,991 2,498,991 1,687,828 2,293,170 2,293,170 1,832,097 2,610,943 1,850,044 2,3EPA FUNDING 505,880 508,430 508,430 737,516 508,430 508,430 546,883 508,430 5

PROGRAM COST 6,978,479 6,975,929 6,056,458 6,141,446 6,141,446 6,125,846 6,169,909 6,317,663 5,7

$'s Over / (Under) MOE Goal 536,366 533,816 73,240 84,988 84,988 69,388 44,063 191,818 

(5

FY14 Budgeted - FY13 Revised Budgeted 59,090

SBCAPCD EPA MOE FY 09/10 - 13/14
Exhibit
32.2






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 Annual Report of Clearfield, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce G. Blackey,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge that:




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






/s/ Bruce G. BlackeyBruce
      G. BlackeyChief
      Financial Officer






65
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00041-CV

LEWIS LAPAUL FULSOM AND PAULINE 

FULSOM, AS NEXT OF FRIEND,

Appellants

v.

MEXIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 87th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29,040-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis LaPaul Fulsom and his mother, Pauline Fulsom, filed a lawsuit in May of 

2009 against various entities and individuals. After being issued a criminal trespass 

warning, which prohibited Fulsom from entering on Mexia Independent School District 

property, Fulsom amended his petition and sued MISD for abuse of process. MISD 

filed a plea to the jurisdiction contending it was immune from Fulsom’s abuse of 

process claim. The plea was granted, and Fulsom appeals. We affirm.
Fulsom v. Mexia ISD Page 2

Whether a pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate a trial court's 

subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Tex. Dep't of Parks & 

Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). 

While sovereign immunity refers to the immunity from suit and liability of the 

State and the various divisions of state government, governmental immunity protects 

political subdivisions of the State, including school districts. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. 

v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 n.3 (Tex. 2003); Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Briggs, 262 

S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. denied). For school districts, the Texas 

Tort Claims Act’s waiver of governmental immunity is narrow, encompassing only tort 

claims involving the use or operation of motor vehicles. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 101.051 (Vernon 2005); Mission Consolidated, 253 S.W.3d at 656; Briggs, 262 

S.W.3d at 392. Further, governmental units are immune from intentional torts. TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.057 (Vernon 2005).

Fulsom sued MISD for abuse of process, which is an intentional tort. See

Dillard's, Inc. v. Newman, 299 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. denied); Harris 

v. Francis, No. 05-99-00866-CV, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 1067 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 16, 

2000, no pet.). Because the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for 

intentional torts, MISD was entitled to immunity. Further, because Fulsom did not 

allege that his claim against MISD involved the use or operation of a motor vehicle, 

MISD was entitled to immunity. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting 

MISD’s plea to the jurisdiction. 
Fulsom v. Mexia ISD Page 3

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 22, 2010

[CV06]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                         302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Blair Zykan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of TDI Holding Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  July 14, 2004


/s/ Blair Zykan
-----------------------
Blair Zykan,
President, CFO, & Director
25.302-5 Remedies.

(a) In addition to other remedies available to the Government-

(1) The contracting officer may direct the contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any

contractor or subcontractor personnel performing private security functions who fail to comply with

or violate applicable requirements. Such action may be taken at the Government's discretion without

prejudice to its rights under any other contract provision, e.g., termination for default;

(2) The contracting officer shall include the contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of

this section in appropriate databases of past performance and consider any such failure in any

responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance; and

(3) In the case of award-fee contracts, the contracting officer shall consider a contractor’s failure to

comply with the requirements of this subsection in the evaluation of the contractor’s performance

during the relevant evaluation period, and may treat such failure as a basis for reducing or denying

award fees for such period or for recovering all or part of award fees previously paid for such period.

(b) If the performance failures are severe, prolonged, or repeated, the contracting officer shall refer

the matter to the appropriate suspending and debarring official.

Parent topic: 25.302 Contractors performing private security functions outside the United States.
#### § 46.34 No disclosure of business of licensee.

No representative of the Department shall, without the consent of the licensee, divulge or make known, except to financially interested parties, or to other representatives of the Department who may be required to have such knowledge in the regular course of their official duties, or except insofar as he may be directed by the Secretary, Deputy Administrator, Director, or a court of competent jurisdiction, any facts or information regarding the business of such licensee which may come to the knowledge of such representative through an examination or inspection of the business or the accounts of the licensee, unless such facts or information should be testified to at a hearing authorized by the act because they are relevant and material to the issue in the case being heard.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Morisell McNair, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings

County, rendered October 4, 1968, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, petit larceny and possession of a dangerous weapon as a felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. In our opinion defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof established that defendant and another held up a grocery store; that the store clerk followed them, saw them enter a building and stopped a passing patrol car; that defendant was found in the building hallway, near a gun which was discovered under a radiator; that he was arrested and brought from the building in handcuffs; and that he was immediately identified by the clerk, who was waiting outside the building, all within about 20 minutes after the commission of the crime. The gun, identified by the complainant, was properly admitted in evidence. Any question as to the accuracy of that identification went to the weight or probative force of the evidence rather than to the admissibility of the weapon *(People*v. *Miller,*17 N Y 2d 559; *People*v. *Pinelli,*24 A D 2d 1023; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence [11th ed.], § 762). On the record presented, the pretrial identification procedure was not so unnecessarily and prejudicially suggestive as to constitute a denial of due process (cf. *People*v. *Rodriguez,*29 A D 2d 891, affd. 23 N Y 2d 940). It is not clear from the record that an oral statement by defendant, that he did not live in the building where he was found, was admitted in evidence. If it be assumed, however, that the statement was received and that defendant had not been given the warning required by *Miranda*v. *Arizona*(384 U. S. 436), we are of the opinion that the error may be disregarded as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(Chapman*v. *California,*386 U. S. 18, 22; cf. *People*v. *Savino,*22 N Y 2d 732, 733; *People*v. *Miles*23 N Y 2d 527). Defendant’s other contentions have been considered and we find no grounds therein for disturbing the judgment of conviction. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
3.907-7 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009, in all solicitations and contracts funded in whole or in part with Recovery

Act funds.

Parent topic: 3.907 Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009 (the Recovery Act).