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








SUMMARY OF OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Effective January 1, 2017, compensation paid to non-employee directors of the Company is as follows:


Cash Compensation
		
	•
	An annual cash retainer of $85,000, paid quarterly in advance.


Annual retainers of $132,000 for the Non-Executive Chairman, if any, $30,000 for the Lead Director, if any; $22,500 for the Audit Committee Chair, $20,000 for the HR Committee Chair; and $15,000 for the Governance Committee Chair, each paid quarterly in advance.


		
	•
	Annual Committee member retainers of $7,500 for Audit Committee members, $5,000 for HR Committee members; and $5,000 for Governance Committee members, each paid quarterly in advance.


		
	•
	A fee of $1,000 for each Executive Committee meeting attended in person or by telephone.




Outside directors may elect to defer their cash compensation under the DENTSPLY International Inc. Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan (as amended).


Equity Compensation
		
	•
	An annual grant of options to purchase a number of shares of common stock equal in value to $87,500, calculated using the Black-Scholes valuation method. The stock options vest in full one year from the date of grant and have an exercise price equal to the closing price of the Company's common stock on the date of grant. Stock options are exercisable for ten years from the grant date, subject to earlier expiration in the event of termination or retirement.




		
	•
	An annual grant of restricted stock units (RSUs), the number of which is determined by dividing $87,500 by the closing price of the Company's common stock on the date of grant. The RSUs vest one year from the date of grant and are payable to outside directors in shares of common stock upon vesting unless the director elects to defer settlement of the RSUs to a future date. Outside directors are entitled to receive dividend equivalents on the RSUs in the event the Company pays a regular cash dividend on its common stock.
1432.903 Responsibilities.

The CO may modify the timing of payment specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of the clause FAR

52.232-26, Prompt Payment for Fixed-Price Architect-Engineer Contracts, and/or paragraph (a)(1)(i)

and (ii) of the clause at FAR 52.232-27, Prompt Payment for Construction Contracts, as appropriate,

to provide for a period shorter than 30 days (but not less than 7 days) for making contract financing

payments based on geographical site location, workload, contractor ability to submit a proper

request for payment, or other factors. When considering a modification to these FAR standard(s), the

CO should alert the finance and program officials involved in the payment process to ensure that

such shorter contract payment terms to be specified in the solicitation and resulting contract will be

met. A CO determination justifying a shorter payment period must be documented in writing, and

incorporated into the solicitation/contract file.

Parent topic: Subpart 1432.9 - Prompt Payment
1

This submission is without oral argument. Should the

court determine that oral argument is necessary, a hearing

date will be scheduled later.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD )

PRESERVING, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv708-CSC

)

AMERICAN HOME )

ASSURANCE CO. et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On May 30, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is to be submitted on the

motion, the pleadings, and any documents or other evidence the party seeking summary

judgment has already filed or which the plaintiff may wish to file in response on or before

July 2, 2007.1

 Any documents or evidence filed after this date will not be considered by

the court except in exceptional circumstances.

 In responding to a motion for summary judgment, the parties should make specific

reference to the following provisions of Rule 56(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided

in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or

denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise 

Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 23 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2

An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing made under oath or on affirmation before a notary public

or other authorized officer. The affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set forth such facts as

would be admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the

matters stated in the affidavit.

 3If the party opposing the motion is unable to present, by affidavit, facts essential to justify his

opposition, then he must file a sworn statement as to why he is unable to do so.

2

provided for in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a 

genuine issue for trial. 

A party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rely only on the unsworn

pleadings but must oppose the motion by filing sworn affidavits that set forth specific

facts which demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial in this case.2

Failure to file sworn affidavits may result in this court accepting the moving party's

evidence as the truth.3

 If documents are referred to in the opposing affidavits and have

not been previously filed with the court, sworn or certified copies of those papers must be

attached to the affidavits or served with them. 

Failure to follow the requirements of Rule 56 regarding the proper way to oppose a

motion for summary judgment may result in an order granting the motion and entry of

final judgment in favor of the moving party without further proceedings.

Done this 4th day of June, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 23 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1








CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO


SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)


OR
RULE 15d-14(b) AND 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 on
Form 10-K of the Tennessee Valley Authority (the “Company”) for the year ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tom Kilgore, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, for the purposes of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.














/s/
      Tom
      KilgoreTom
      KilgorePresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerNovember
      25, 2009
#### Katherine Kapuscinski, Respondent, v John M. Kapuscinski, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 12, 1978, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*(1) granted the plaintiff wife a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and constructive abandonment, (2) awarded plaintiff custody of the parties’ infant daughter and defendant custody of the parties’ infant son, (3) granted alimony to the plaintiff of $40 per week and (4) ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $35 per week for the support of the parties’ infant daughter. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. Pending the new trial and determination, defendant is to pay plaintiff alimony of $20 per week and child support of $35 per week. The parties shall proceed to trial forthwith. It was prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of the then 14-year-old son of the parties on the basis of "his age and immaturity” without conducting an adequate examination to determine his capacity and the extent of his knowledge (see *Rittenhouse v Town of North Hempstead,*11 AD2d 957; see, also, *Olshansky v Prensky,*185 App Div 469; *People v Perles,*5 AD2d 993; Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 390, pp 368-370). In the case at bar, the record reflects that the 14-year-old infant, who had resided with both parents prior to the commencement of the instant action and during its pendency, would in all likelihood have been able to provide competent and relevant testimony with respect to the contested issues of divorce and custody. In addition, it also appears from the record that the trial court, in awarding alimony and child support, did not properly balance the wife’s needs and her independent means with the husband’s ability to pay. The trial court can, and indeed must, apportion such costs in accordance with the parties’ respective means and responsibilities (see *Hickland v Hickland,*39 NY2d 1, 6-7; *Kover v Rover,*29 NY2d 408; see, also, *Matter of Carter v Carter,*58 AD2d 438). In this connection, the court’s attention is also directed to *577section 699.9 (f) (6) of our rules (22 NYCRR 699.9 [f¡ [6]). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 255 Filed 05/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
161 So.2d 279

#### PONTCHARTRAIN PARK HOMES, INC. v. SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 47133.

March 11, 1964.

Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.

159 So.2d 774.

Writ granted, limited to the question as to whether applicant is liable for interest.
<PAGE>



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 Quarterly Report of Outdoor Channel Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ William A. Owen
---------------------------------
WILLIAM A. OWEN
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor
Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EX-34 (d)
(logo) Grant Thornton

Accountants and Business Advisors


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company") complied
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage backed
securities for which the Company served as third-party property tax payment
provider on the underlying collateral (the "Platform") as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and
1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Irvine, CA
February 20, 2007


18400 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92612-0525
T 949.553.1600
F 949.553.0168
W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP
US member of Grant Thornton International
#### § 987.23 Term of office.

The term of office for members and alternate members shall be three years beginning August 1, except that such term may be shorter if the Committee composition is changed in the interim pursuant to § 987.21. *Provided,* That the terms of office of all members and alternates currently serving at the time of the amendment will end on July 31, 2014. Each member and alternate member shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary, continue to serve until his or her successor has been selected and has qualified.

[77 FR 37765, June 25, 2012]
#### James Bowers, Appellant, v Paula A. Vial et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 5, 1979, which is in favor of the defendants upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the close of all the evidence. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs. Trial Term correctly concluded that the defendants had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the slippery substance on the stairway upon which the plaintiff fell. There was a complete absence of proof as to how the substance got on the stairway or that either of the defendants or their employees created the condition (see *Bogart v Woolworth Co.,*24 NY2d 936, 937; *Lavine v United Paper Bd. Co.,*243 NY 631; *Katcher v Ideal Tennis,*65 AD2d 751; *Dowling v Woolworth Co.,*16 AD2d 672; *Donohoe v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*277 App Div 739). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3214

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain specialty monomers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2006

Mr. Lautenberg introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain specialty monomers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SPECIALTY MONOMERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.29.11        Benzene, 1,1-[2,2,2-    Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           trifluoro-1-                                                      31/2009          ''
                           (trifluoromethyl)ethy                                                               .
                           lidene]bis[3,4-
                           dimethyl- (CAS No.
                           65294-20-4) (provided
                           for in subheading
                           2903.30.20)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER ANTONIO CAMPOS

DUARTE, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 71222 Agency No. A200

- 939

- 266

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2021 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges

. Alexander Antonio Campos

- Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71222

Torture (“CAT”). We have j urisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal questi on of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id

. We deny the petition
for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s dete rmination that Campos

Duarte failed to establish that his proposed social group is socially distinct. See id. at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the abse nce of society

- specific evidence of social distinction). Therefore , the BIA did not err in concluding that Campos

- Duarte did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in ord er to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus , Campos

- Duarte’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’ s denial of CAT relief because3 20

- 71222

Campos

- Duarte failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
PART 28 –– BONDS AND INSURANCE

 SUBPART 28.1 — BONDS

 28.106 Administration.

 28.106-6 Furnishing information.

 SUBPART 28.2 – SURETIES AND OTHER SECURITY FOR BONDS

 28.203-5 Exclusion of individual sureties.

 SUBPART 28.3 – INSURANCE

 28.306 Insurance under fixed–price contracts.

 28.310 Contract clause for work on a Government installation.

SUBPART 28.1 — BONDS

28.106 Administration.

28.106-6 Furnishing information.

(c) The CoCO is delegated the authority to provide a certified copy of the performance bond to an

interested party and determine the costs for preparing the certified copy of the bond.

SUBPART 28.2 – SURETIES AND OTHER SECURITY FOR

BONDS

28.203-5 Exclusion of individual sureties.

(a) The HCA is the designee.

SUBPART 28.3 – INSURANCE
28.306 Insurance under fixed–price contracts.

(b) See DARS PGI 28.306(b) for Certificate of Insurance

28.310 Contract clause for work on a Government installation.

(S-90) Insurance is mandatory when commingling of property, type of operation, circumstances of

ownership, or condition of the contract make it necessary for the protection of the Government.

Providing accountable property (e.g., laptops) to contractors is not commingling of property.

52.228-5 requires the KO to specify the types and amounts of Insurance needed.

Insert DITCO Additional Text H7, DITCO Minimum Insurance Requirement in the contract to specify

minimum insurance required. See DARS PGI 52.
Subpart 2906.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition    **Parent topic:** PART 2906 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS2906.301 Policy.       (a) Department of Labor acquisitions must comply with the Department of Labor Manual Series (DLMS) 2, Chapter 830 (available by mail from the Director, Division of Acquisition Management Services, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210-0001), or electronically from *http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/boc/prb.htm.* Any proposed noncompetitive acquisition in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold must be fully justified and, if required by the DLMS, submitted to the DOL Procurement Review Board and approved by the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management and, in the case of research and development contracts, also by the Assistant Secretary for Policy.          (b) With the exception of contracts for advisory and assistance services or for research and development, the contracting officer has the authority below the simplified acquisition threshold to approve sole source contracts. The contracting officer is responsible for assuring that proposed acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold are in compliance with FAR and DOLAR requirements regarding competition.2906.303 Justifications.       The authority of the agency head to determine that only specified make and models of technical equipment will satisfy the agency's need under FAR 6.302-1 is delegated to the HCA.
#### § 945.17 District.

*District* means each of the geographical divisions of the production area established pursuant to § 945.22 or as reestablished pursuant to § 945.23.
#### § 956.45 Contributions.

The committee may accept voluntary contributions but these shall be used only to pay expenses incurred pursuant to § 956.50. Such contributions shall be free from any encumbrances by the donor, and the committee shall retain complete control of their use.