alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
  
 Non-employee directors of United States Steel Corporation currently receive: 
  

	 	•	 	Annual Retainer - $100,000 

  

	 	•	 	Committee Membership Fees 

  

	 	•	 	Audit & Finance - $10,000 ($11,000 for Chairman) 

  

	 	•	 	Compensation & Organization - $5,000 ($6,000 for Chairman) 

  

	 	•	 	Corporate Governance & Public Policy - $5,000 ($6,000 for Chairman) 

  

	 	•	 	Meeting Fee (for each Board or Committee meeting) - $2,000 

  

	 	•	 	Presiding Director Retainer - $1,000 per year 

  
 Under the Deferred Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors, a program under the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, each non-employee director is required to defer
at least 70% of his or her annual retainer in the form of Common Stock Units, and may elect to defer up to 100%. A Common Stock Unit is what is sometimes referred to as “phantom stock” because initially no stock is actually issued.
Instead, a book entry account is kept for each director that shows how many Common Stock Units he or she has. When a director leaves the Board, he or she must take actual shares of common stock corresponding to the number of Common Stock Units in
his or her account. Each participating director’s deferred stock account is credited with Common Stock Units each January. The ongoing value of each Common Stock Unit equals the market value of the common stock. When dividends are paid on the
common stock, each account is credited with equivalent amounts of Common Stock Units. If U.S. Steel were to undergo a change of control resulting in the removal of a non-employee director from the Board, that director would receive a cash payment
equal to the value of his or her deferred stock account. 
  
 Under the
Non-Employee Director Stock Program, a program under the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan, upon joining the Board, each non-employee director is entitled to receive a grant of up to 1,000 shares of common stock. In order to qualify, each director must
first have purchased an equivalent number of shares in the open market during the 60 days following the first date of his or her service on the Board.
§ 1.1315 What traceability plan must I have for foods on the Food Traceability List that I manufacture, process, pack, or hold? ( a ) If you are subject to the requirements in this subpart, you must establish and maintain a traceability plan containing the following information: ( 1 ) A description of the procedures you use to maintain the records you are required to keep under this subpart, including the format and location of these records.
( 2 ) A description of the procedures you use to identify foods on the Food Traceability List that you manufacture, process, pack, or hold;
( 3 ) A description of how you assign traceability lot codes to foods on the Food Traceability List in accordance with § 1.1320, if applicable;
( 4 ) A statement identifying a point of contact for questions regarding your traceability plan and records; and
( 5 ) If you grow or raise a food on the Food Traceability List (other than eggs), a farm map showing the areas in which you grow or raise such foods. ( i ) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section, the farm map must show the location and name of each field (or other growing area) in which you grow a food on the Food Traceability List, including geographic coordinates and any other information needed to identify the location of each field or growing area.
( ii ) For aquaculture farms, the farm map must show the location and name of each container (*e.g.,* pond, pool, tank, cage) in which you raise seafood on the Food Traceability List, including geographic coordinates and any other information needed to identify the location of each container.
( b ) You must update your traceability plan as needed to ensure that the information provided reflects your current practices and to ensure that you are in compliance with the requirements of this subpart. You must retain your previous traceability plan for 2 years after you update the plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,834
<SECURITIES>                                    39,948
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (549)
<INVENTORY>                                        421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,730
<PP&E>                                           9,571
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,043)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,971
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,971
<SALES>                                         16,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,697
<CGS>                                            6,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,294
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,207
<INCOME-TAX>                                       703
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,504
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 456 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 456

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     December 18, 2005.
Whereas for three decades there has been a continuous armed conflict in Aceh, a 
        province in Sumatra, Indonesia;
Whereas violence between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement has 
        resulted in an estimated 15,000 deaths in the region;
Whereas the tsunami that occurred on December 26, 2004, killed at least 165,000 
        people in Aceh and devastated the landscape;
Whereas after the tsunami both the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh 
        Movement recognized that a peaceful settlement of the conflict would 
        have to be reached to enable the rebuilding of Aceh;
Whereas after months of negotiating through the Crisis Management Initiative 
        chaired by former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, the parties 
        agreed to a draft memorandum of understanding to end the conflict in 
        July 2005;
Whereas Hamid Awaludin, Minister of Law and Human Rights of Indonesia, and Malik 
        Mahmud, of the Free Aceh Movement, signed the final memorandum of 
        understanding on August 15, 2005, in Helsinki;
Whereas the memorandum of understanding provides a timetable for disarmament of 
        the Free Aceh Movement and troop withdrawals by the Indonesian military;
Whereas the memorandum of understanding provides the people of Aceh with new 
        political powers and the right to retain 70 percent of the revenues from 
        certain natural resource extractions from the province;
Whereas a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Human Rights Court will be 
        established for Aceh;
Whereas the Free Aceh Movement has agreed to forego its demand for independence; 
        and
Whereas Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has provided amnesty and 
        released hundreds of Free Aceh Movement members being held in prison 
        since the signing of the peace agreement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses support for the memorandum of understanding signed by 
        the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement 
        on August 15, 2005, to end the conflict in Aceh, a province in Sumatra, 
        Indonesia, and congratulates both parties for their willingness to 
        compromise;
            (2) expresses the hope that both parties live up to their 
        commitments under the memorandum of understanding and that peace and 
        security can finally be achieved in Aceh after three decades; and
            (3) encourages the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the 
        United States Agency for International Development to commit resources 
        in guaranteeing the peace and building a strong civil society in Aceh.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000713 04-JUN-2018 10:29 AM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 82129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32889]



[[Page 82129]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7280]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Francis Al[yuml]s: A Story of Deception''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Francis Al[yuml]s,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New 
York, NY, from on or about May 8, 2011, until on or about August 1, 
2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 21, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-32889 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Philip Robinson et al., Appellants, v. Wallace G. Oakland, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 16, 1968, affirmed, with one bill of costs jointly to respondents filing separate briefs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur; Benjamin and Kleinfeld, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, plaintiffs’ proof made out a prima facie ease and it therefore was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of their proof.
# EUR-Lex - 31993R2454R(04) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31993R2454R(04)

**CORRIGENDUM TO: - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code **

*
Official Journal L 111 , 29/04/1999 P. 0088 *

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 253 of 11 October 1993)

In Article 313(2):

for: "By way of derogation from this provision... ",

read: "By way of derogation from point (a) of this paragraph... ".

In Article 444(2):

for: "... as provided for in Article 311(c) of the Code,... ",

read: "... as provided for in Article 311(c),... ".

In Annex 49, under "II. Acceptance by the office of departure":

for: "to cover the T1/T2F(4) transit operation... ",

read: "to cover the T1/T2/T2F(4) transit operation... ".

In Annex 77, against "Numerical order 115", in column (4):

for: "Semi-milled rice,... ",

read: "Wholly milled rice,... ".
# " Regulatory Evaluation Docket No. FAA-2012-1331 

# Directorate Identifier: **2012~NE-44-AD** 

# lfyou make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordinglv.
If they do not, click (or Tab) into and the11 0111 **t~lthe** 

# clwnged cell. Estimated Costs: Action

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection,

propeller, appliance) Work-hours 

# Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost 

# (labor+ 

# u.s. for U.S. 

# Fleet Do not includeoncondition costs here

access, testing, 

# (@$85/h


# parts) Registered and close-up) our) 

# Products 

# Inspection and 

# I parts replacement

4.0
.-!•:

I Iii

lr; 

### 111: 

# 46

I .
'



# ,. 

# ,-.,, Prorated parts' cost based on average

'.)·,.I 

# life limit reduction

1.' '"' 

# $66,000

,, i• ii,JII ',ill 

# 46 of 44% across 

# 15 

# I oarts per engine

ij 1111

il 

### ;,il

(I

I



# ' ·:1 Ill:·

L) !II,'



# ,,


# ' 

# " :) Ill'•



### !! Ill)

I,

I, 

# " II it
'1

II !Iii



# ,, .. .;, li(J



## <I iii;

li oJI) .11!11

1: ill!

''ill, il,:lli

li Ill.'



## ·.

,I ill, !1,11(,1



# "

I iii

I l]l; 111:•.1



# "

In

I

., li•.· 

## ' II· it!

I



# "

l,i\1

!1 I!<,' 11,11.'1

(,'<hI



## ·. ',·,; 11,1,}·:1



# '

,;;:

:; 1,11 11,11:1

!I l)il



# , 

# '·

,:I II !iii

;,_,::1

l, "" 

# . li,l'i)



# ,, !Hi

II'Jij 

# "

!ill



# " ,li)



# ,, 

# ''· t:. 

# ""

,, ;;,



# ''"' ' ,Jii

'Ill.' 

# The knovvn number of products in compliance:

0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,051,640 Costs covered under warranty 

# (if known)



# $0 On-Condition Costs: Action

Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection,

(include access, (@$85/hour) replacement)

testing, and close- up) 

# 0



# ·. '•::1 I I•



# ' "SpecialconsiderationsforEconomic Analysis(UsethisfieldtoexplainanythingintheEstimatedCoststablethatwasassumedormightnotbeobvious.Thisfieldcanalsobeusedtoexplainwarrantycosts):ExecutiveOrder12866:CouldtheADbeconsidereda"significantregulatoryaction"?,•.YES'0NO[S;I*Explanation:DOTRegulatoryPoliciesandProcedures:IstheADsignificant?YES'0NO[S;i*Explanation:RegulatoryFlexibilityAct:WilltheADhaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities?ExplainforeitheraYesorNoYES0NO[S;IExplanation:IntrastateAviationinAlaska:ThisADcouldaffectintrastate aviationinAlaska.IsitappropriatetoincludespecificrequirementsforaircraftoperatedinAlaskawhereaviationmightbetheonlymodeoftransportation?YES'0NO[S;i*Explanation:
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.6 Petitions for generally applicable rulemaking. ( a ) *Right to file.* Any person may file a petition for generally applicable rulemaking to amend or interpret provisions of this part.
( b ) *How to file.* Any person who wants to file a petition for generally applicable rulemaking pursuant to this section must file by mail or messenger in an envelope addressed to the Office of General Counsel, GC-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
( c ) *Content of rulemaking petitions.* A petition under this section must: ( 1 ) Be labeled “Petition for Rulemaking Under 10 CFR 851;”
( 2 ) Describe with particularity the provision of this part to be amended and the text of regulatory language to be added; and
( 3 ) Explain why, if relevant, DOE should not choose to make policy by precedent through adjudication of petitions for assessment of civil penalty.
( d ) *Determinations upon rulemaking petitions.* After considering the petition and other information DOE deems relevant, DOE may grant the petition and issue an appropriate rulemaking notice, or deny the petition because the rule being sought: ( 1 ) Would be inconsistent with statutory law;
( 2 ) Would establish a generally applicable policy in a subject matter area that should be left to case-by-case determinations; or
( 3 ) For other good cause.
#### § 835.208 Limits for members of the public entering a controlled area.

The total effective dose limit for members of the public exposed to radiation and/or radioactive material during access to a controlled area is 0.1 rem (0.001 Sv) in a year.

[72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.720 How may I contest a suspension?

If you as a respondent wish to contest a suspension, you or your representative must provide the suspending official with information in opposition to the suspension. You may do this orally or in writing, but any information provided orally that you consider important must also be submitted in writing for the official record.
#### § 2998.332 What requirements must I pass down to persons at lower tiers with whom I intend to do business?

You, as a participant, must include a term or condition in lower-tier transactions requiring lower-tier participants to comply with subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this subpart.
#### § 603.830 Pre-award costs.

Pre-award costs, as long as they are otherwise allowable costs of the project, may be charged to an expenditure-based TIA only with the specific approval of the contracting officer. All pre-award costs are incurred at the recipient's risk (e.g., DOE is not obligated to reimburse the costs if, for any reason, the recipient does not receive an award, or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover the costs).
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00254

- CR

JASON ALAN MCCONNELL

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 1

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 03699

- CRM

- CCL1

REINSTATEMENT ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due February 26, 2018. In an order issued June 27,

2018, we abate d the appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings pursuant

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3). A

hearing was held, and the trial court recommends that appellant be permitted to fi le his

brief by August 1, 2018.McConnell v. State Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated, and appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be

filed by August 1, 2018. If no brief is filed by that date, this appeal will again be abated

to the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Before C hief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed July 18 , 2018
§ 415.11 Processing comments. ( a ) The Secretary follows the procedures in § 415.12 if: ( 1 ) A State office or official is designated to act as a single point of contact between a State process and all Federal agencies; and
( 2 ) That office or official transmits a State process recommendation for a program selected under § 415.8.
( b ) ( 1 ) The single point of contact is not obligated to transmit comments from State, areawide, regional or local officials and entities where there is no State process recommendation.
( 2 ) If a State process recommendation is transmitted by a single point of contact, all comments from State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities that differ from it must also be transmitted.
( c ) If a State has not established a process, or is unable to submit a State process recommendation, State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments either to the applicant or to the Department.
( d ) If a program or activity is not selected by a State process, State, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments either to the applicant or to the Department. In addition, if a State process recommendation for a non-selected program or activity is transmitted to the Department by the single point of contact, the Secretary follows the procedures of § 415.12.
( e ) The Secretary considers comments which do not constitute a State process recommendation submitted under these regulations and for which the Secretary is not required to apply the procedures of § 415.12, when such comments are provided by a single point of contact by the applicant, or directly to the Department by a commenting party.