alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit10-1.htm


    Exhibit 10.1        


      Enterprise
Value Award Plan

      April
30, 2008

      


      Amendment
to Reflect

      Supplemental
Award to Ronald Rossetti

      December
4, 2008

      


      


      Except as
set forth below, the terms of the Enterprise Value Award Plan (the “Plan”)
provided to Mr. Rossetti (“Executive”)
remain unchanged:

      


      1.           Section
2.1 is amended by inserting “$8” before “$11” and by inserting after the first
sentence: “The tranche based on $8 is referred to herein as the “Supplemental
Tranche.”

      


      2.           Section
2.4 is amended by inserting before the semicolon “or, for the Supplemental
Tranche, its date of grant December 4, 2008.”

      


      3.           Section
3 is amended by inserting in the table the following row as a new second
row:

      


      


      
        
          
            
              
                
                  	
                                  $8

                        	
                          150,000

                        


                

              

            

          

        

      

      


      and by
revising the last two sentences to say “(In other words, if the Share Price
Performance Target were met at $13, the Executive would receive RSUs equivalent
to 185,000 shares plus RSUs equivalent to 180,000 (the $11 target) and RSUs
equivalent to 150,000 (the $8 target) but only if the $11 and $8 targets had not
previously been paid.)  In addition, the maximum number of shares or
cash equivalents that can be issued with respect to this Plan is 700,000
shares.”

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment.




      
        
          	 
      	
                  TIER
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                  January 25, 2009

                	
                  By:

                	
                  /s/ Samuel Cabot III

                
	
                  Date

                	 
      	
                  Samuel
      Cabot III

                
	 
      	 
      	
                  Chair,
      Compensation Committee

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  THE
      EXECUTIVE

                
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                  January 25, 2009

                	 
      	
                  /s/ Ronald L. Rossetti

                
	
                  Date

                	 
      	
                  Ronald
      L. Rossetti, Sr.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Clevester Hemphill, Respondent, v. Presbyterian Hospital et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants dispute the board’s findings that claimant, a pot washer, sustained an accidental back injury while lifting a heavy pot of soup in May of 1961, that causal relationship exists between that accident and claimant’s subsequent back condition and that the claim was not barred by section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. At best we find factual issues, primarily questions of credibility, with respect to the occurrence of an industrial accident in May of 1961, the resolution of which was solely within the province of the board (e.g., *Matter of Manolakis*v. *Edison S. Corp.,*15 A D 2d 845). Accordingly, the claim which was filed on October 4, 1962, was timely filed. Similarly we find nothing more than the usual conflict of medical evidence with respect to the issue of causal relationship and thus the board’s determination thereon must be sustained (e.g., *Matter of Palermo*v. *Gallucci & Sons,*5 N Y 2d 529). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur with Reynolds, J.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 5:03cr26-RH/WCS

5:04cv276-RH/WCS

JEFFREY LEON HARRIS,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 40). No objections have been filed, but defendant did

file a “traverse” after entry of the report and recommendation. The magistrate

judge treated the “traverse” as a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion.

In order to give the defendant the benefit of every doubt, I also treat the “traverse”

as objections to the report and recommendation. I have reviewed de novo the

issues raised by the “traverse,” that is, by the objections.

The report and recommendation is correct. Defendant has admitted every

element of the instant offense and every fact that increased his guidelines range on

the instant offense other than the convictions that were used as a basis for applying

Case 5:03-cr-00026-RH-WCS Document 43 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03cr21-RH/WCS and 5:04cv431-RH/WCS

the guidelines’ career offender provisions. But prior convictions are not subject to

the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 

Defendant was convicted at trial or admitted the facts essential to each of those

prior convictions. The statutory elements of those offenses were sufficient to

establish that they were qualifying offenses under the career criminal provisions

used to set defendant’s guidelines range in the case at bar, thus eliminating any

basis for objection under Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005). In

short, defendant was properly sentenced. 

For these reasons and those set forth in the report and recommendation, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (document 39)

is denied. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cr-00026-RH-WCS Document 43 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30477]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Regional Advisory Committees

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education.

ACTION: Notice of establishment of 10 Regional Advisory Committees.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces the 
establishment of ten Regional Advisory Committees (RACs). The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended; 5 U.S.C., 
Appendix) shall govern the RACs.

Purpose

    The Secretary is establishing the RACS in order to collect 
information on the educational needs of each of the ten regions served 
by the Regional Educational Laboratories. The RACs will seek input 
regarding the need for the technical assistance activities described in 
section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act and how those 
needs would be most effectively addressed. In order to achieve this 
purpose, the RACs will seek input from chief executive officers of 
States; chief State school officers; educators, including teachers and 
administrators; local educational agencies; librarians; businesses; 
State educational agencies; parents; and other customers within each 
region.
    Not later than six months after each RAC is convened, the committee 
will submit a report based on this needs assessment to the Secretary. 
Each report will identify the educational needs of the region and how 
those needs would be most effectively addressed. The Secretary will 
establish priorities for the comprehensive centers to address, taking 
into account these regional assessments and other relevant regional 
surveys of educational needs, to the extent the Secretary deems 
appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Department of Education, White 
House Liaison Office, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 401-3677.
    The official version of this document is the document published in 
the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of 
the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available 
on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.

    Dated: November 29, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-30477 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
#### § 56.37 Lot marking of officially identified shell eggs.

Shell eggs identified with the grademarks shown in § 56.36 shall be legibly lot numbered on either the individual egg, the carton, or the consumer package. The lot number shall be the consecutive day of the year on which the eggs were packed (e.g., 132), except other lot numbering systems may be used when submitted in writing and approved by the Administrator.

[35 FR 5664, Apr. 8, 1970. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, as amended at 46 FR 39570, Aug. 4, 1981. Redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 60 FR 12402, Mar. 7, 1995; 63 FR 13331, Mar. 19, 1998; 69 FR 76376, Dec. 21, 2004]
§ 621.40 Participation in Federal interagency policy activities at the national level. ( a ) Policy development in water and related land resources is coordinated at the Federal level through the Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and Environment. NRCS provides staff support and representation in these activities as requested.
( b ) Within the Department, all interested USDA agencies participate in water policy development through the USDA Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and the Water Issues Work Group.
( c ) NRCS provides appropriate staff support when requested for committees, work groups, and task forces established for interagency coordination of water resources related activities of Federal agencies.
# L_2014201EN.01002701.xml

| 10.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 201/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/27

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 8 July 2014

appointing two Italian members of the Committee of the Regions

(2014/446/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 3 June 2010, by Decision 2010/311/EU (3), Mr Roberto COTA was appointed as member until 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. On 3 June 2010, by Decision 2010/311/EU (3), Mr Roberto COTA was appointed as member until 25 January 2015.

| (2) | Two members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Giovanni CHIODI and Mr Roberto COTA, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Two members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Giovanni CHIODI and Mr Roberto COTA,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed as members to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Mr Luciano D'ALFONSO, Presidente della Regione Abruzzo |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Luciano D'ALFONSO, Presidente della Regione Abruzzo

| — | Mr Sergio CHIAMPARINO, Presidente della Regione Piemonte. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Sergio CHIAMPARINO, Presidente della Regione Piemonte.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2014.

For the Council

The President

P. C. PADOAN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 140, 8.6.2010, p. 26.

3

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VII Limited Partnership 1999 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000758009
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      183
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          22,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,177)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         10,831
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,395
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,991
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       331
<EPS-BASIC>                                    18.91<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 550.110 Certifications and compliance with statutory and national policy requirements; REE conflict of interest policy. ( a ) *Federal statutory and national policy* requirements. The Cooperator must adhere to and comply with, all statutory and national policy requirements of the Federal Government. All signed certifications and assurances must be received by the REE Agency prior to execution of the award.
( b ) *REE conflict of interest policy.* ( 1 ) The Cooperator must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the REE awarding agency, prior to award, and when a potential conflict arises during NACA period of performance.
( 2 ) The Cooperator must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the performance of their employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts, and any subawards.
52.209-10 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations.       As prescribed in 9.108-5(b), insert the following clause:          Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (Nov 2015)                                       (a)                   *Definitions*. As used in this clause-                *Inverted domestic corporation* means a	foreign incorporated entity that meets the definition of an inverted	domestic corporation under 6 U.S.C.	395(b), applied in accordance with the rules and definitions of 6 U.S.C. 395(c).                *Subsidiary* means an entity in which more than 50 percent of the entity is owned-(1) Directly by a parent corporation; or                                                                     (2) Through another subsidiary of a parent corporation.                                                                                                   (b) 						            If the contractor reorganizes as an inverted domestic corporation or becomes a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation at any time during the period of performance of this contract, the Government may be prohibited from paying for Contractor activities performed after the date when it becomes an inverted domestic corporation or subsidiary. The Government may seek any available remedies in the event the Contractor fails to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract as a result of Government action under this clause.                                          (c) 						            Exceptions to this prohibition are located at 9.108-2.                                          (d) 						            In the event the Contractor becomes either an inverted domestic corporation, or a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation during contract performance, the Contractor shall give written notice to the Contracting Officer within five business days from the date of the inversion event.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.209 [Reserved]
52.216-12 Cost-Sharing Contract-No Fee.       As prescribed in 16.307(f), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when a cost-sharing contract is contemplated. This clause may be modified by substituting "$10,000" in lieu of "$100,000" as the maximum reserve in paragraph (b) if the contract is with a nonprofit organization.          Cost Sharing Contract-No Fee (Apr 1984)                                       (a) 						            The Government shall not pay to the Contractor a fee for performing this contract.                                          (b) 						            After paying 80 percent of the Government’s share of the total estimated cost of performance shown in the Schedule, the Contracting Officer may withhold further payment of allowable cost until a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Contracting Officer considers necessary to protect the Government’s interest. This reserve shall not exceed onepercent of the Government’s share of the total estimated cost shown in the Schedule or $100,000, whichever is less.                                 (End of clause)                    *Alternate I*                (Apr 1984). In a contract for research and development with an educational institution, for which the contracting officer has determined that withholding of a portion of allowable cost is not required, delete paragraph (b) of the basic clause.    **Parent topic:** 52.216 [Reserved]
#### § 58.530 Keeping quality requirements.

Keeping quality samples taken from the packaging line shall be held at 45 °F. for 10 days. At the end of the 10 day period the samples shall possess a satisfactory flavor and appearance, and shall be free from bitter, sour, fruity, or other objectionable tastes and odors. The surface shall not be discolored, translucent, slimy or show any other objectionable condition.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-04-008-CV

IN RE MICHAEL CONRAD SICKING	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and McCOY, J.

DELIVERED: January 13, 2004
47.303-12 Ex dock, pier, or warehouse, port

of importation.

(a) Explanation of delivery term."Ex dock, pier, or warehouse, port of importation" means free of

expense to the Government delivered on the designated dock or pier or in the warehouse at the

specified port of importation.

(b) Contractor responsibilities. The contractor shall-

(1)

(i) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or

(ii) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance

with carrier requirements to protect the goods;

(2)

(i) Deliver shipment in good order and condition; and

(ii) Pay and bear all charges up to the point of delivery specified in the contract, including

transportation costs; export, import, or other fees or taxes; costs of wharfage and landing, if any;

customs duties; and costs of certificates of origin, consular invoices, or other documents that may be

required for exportation or importation; and

(3) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the

shipment to the point of delivery specified in the contract.

(c) Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at

52.247-40, Ex Dock, Pier, or Warehouse, Port of Importation, when the delivery term is ex dock, pier,

or warehouse, port of importation.

Parent topic: 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
#### § 51.3206 Wet sunscald.

*Wet sunscald* means any sunscald which is soft, mushy, sticky or wet.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leonard G. Dello, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from two

orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, one dated November 24, 1967, which denied the application after a hearing, and one dated March 29, 1968, which granted reargument, but adhered to the original decision. Appeal from order dated November 24, 1967 dismissed as academic; that order was superseded by the order on reargument. Appeal from order dated March 29, 1968 dismissed insofar as it is with respect to the grant of reargument; defendant was not aggrieved by that provision of the order. Order dated March 29, 1968 affirmed insofar as it adhered to the original decision. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.