alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sidney S. Kantor et al, Respondents, v. Mario A. Procaccino, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel appellants to pay certain wage differentials to petitioners, who are court officers, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 29, 1968, as directed appellants to make such payments for the period from September 1, 1962 to July 18, 1964, with interest. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by adding thereto a provision limiting the recovery of petitioner Alvin Moskowitz to the period commencing July 1, 1963 and ending July 18, 1964, with interest. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. In settlement of their claims against the City of .New York for salary differentials allegedly resulting from services rendered prior to September 1, 1962 as employees *of the City*(see *Matter of Rein*v. *Wagner,*18 N Y 2d 989), petitioners other than Alvin Moskowitz executed releases releasing the city from all claims they might have against "it by reason of services rendered as *employees of the City of New York.*The release executed by Moskowitz did not so limit the claim released but merely described it as *“*claim, No. against The City of New York for back pay period from 5/4/61 to 6/30/63.” In this proceeding petitioners now seek to compel the city to pay certain salary differentials resulting from services rendered by them after September 1, 1962 *as employees of the State of New York.*Respondents concede petitioners are entitled to the relief they seek unless they are barred by the releases mentioned above. As to all petitioners other than Moskowitz we are of the opinion that their releases barred only their earlier claims arising by reason of services rendered as *city*employees prior to September 1, 1962 and do not bar the claims now in suit which arise by reason of services rendered as *State*employees on and after September 1, 1962. As to petitioner Moskowitz, the absence of any limitation on the claim he released operates in our opinion to bar his present claim for salary differential from September 1, 1962 through June 30, 1963. His release does not, however, bar his claim from the period from July 1, 1963 through July 18, 1964. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Benjamin, Munder and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
§ 200.207 Standard application requirements. ( a ) *Paperwork clearances.* The Federal awarding agency may only use application information collections approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB's implementing regulations in 5 CFR part 1320 and in alignment with OMB-approved, governmentwide data elements available from the OMB-designated standards lead. Consistent with these requirements, OMB will authorize additional information collections only on a limited basis.
( b ) *Information collection.* If applicable, the Federal awarding agency may inform applicants and recipients that they do not need to provide certain information otherwise required by the relevant information collection.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT ALLIE BESSETTE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1136 December 6, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer of Samuels Parmer Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. KELLY, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### § 1004.6 Approval of plans.

If, after review of any plan submitted pursuant to this subchapter, the Secretary determines that the action to be taken by the manufacturer will expeditiously and effectively fulfill the manufacturer's obligation under § 1004.1 in a manner designed to encourage the public to respond to the proposal, the Secretary will send written notice of his approval of such plan to the manufacturer. Such approval may be conditioned upon such additional terms as the Secretary deems necessary to protect the public health and safety. Any person who contests denial of a plan shall have an opportunity for a regulatory hearing before the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to part 16 of this chapter.

[38 FR 28629, Oct. 15, 1973, as amended at 41 FR 48269, Nov. 2, 1976; 42 FR 15676, Mar. 22, 1977]
EX-10.3



 







Exhibit 10.3




Amendment to the

Selective Insurance Group, Inc.

Stock Option Plan for Directors



The Selective Insurance Group, Inc. Stock Option Plan for Directors (the “Director Option Plan”) is
amended, effective as of July 26, 2006, as follows:





	1.	 	Section VII is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
	 
	 	 	The exercise price for each share of Common Stock covered by an Option shall be equal to
the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date of grant of such Option. For
the purposes of the Plan, the term “Fair Market Value” shall mean the closing selling price
for a share of Common Stock on the date of grant of an Option (or such other date as such
value must be determined), or, if the date of grant of an Option, or such other date, is
not a trading day, on the most recent trading day immediately prior to the date of grant of
such Option, or such other date, as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (or on the
NASDAQ Global Market or NASDAQ Capital Market or a national securities exchange if the
Common Stock subsequently trades on such an exchange).
	 
	2.	 	The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section V(g):
	 
	 	 	The value of shares of Common Stock used as payment hereunder shall be the Fair Market
Value of such shares on the date of exercise.
	 
	3.	 	Except as set forth in this Amendment to the Selective Insurance Group, Inc. Stock Option
Plan for Directors, Director Option Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Editorial Note on Part 420
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 420 appear at 64 FR 46114, Aug. 24, 1999.

§ 420.34 Matching contributions or cost-sharing. DOE may require (as set forth in the program guidance/solicitation) States to provide either: ( a ) A matching contribution of at least a specified percentage of the Federal financial assistance award; or
( b ) A specified share of the total cost of the project for which financial assistance is provided.
§ 200.433 Contingency provisions. ( a ) Contingency is that part of a budget estimate of future costs (typically of large construction projects, IT systems, or other items as approved by the Federal awarding agency) which is associated with possible events or conditions arising from causes the precise outcome of which is indeterminable at the time of estimate, and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs for the approved activity or project. Amounts for major project scope changes, unforeseen risks, or extraordinary events may not be included.
( b ) It is permissible for contingency amounts other than those excluded in paragraph (a) of this section to be explicitly included in budget estimates, to the extent they are necessary to improve the precision of those estimates. Amounts must be estimated using broadly-accepted cost estimating methodologies, specified in the budget documentation of the Federal award, and accepted by the Federal awarding agency. As such, contingency amounts are to be included in the Federal award. In order for actual costs incurred to be allowable, they must comply with the cost principles and other requirements in this part (see also §§ 200.300 and 200.403 of this part); be necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives, and be verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records.
( c ) Payments made by the Federal awarding agency to the non-Federal entity's “contingency reserve” or any similar payment made for events the occurrence of which cannot be foretold with certainty as to the time or intensity, or with an assurance of their happening, are unallowable, except as noted in §§ 200.431 and 200.447.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 75886, Dec. 19, 2014; 85 FR 49567, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### § 1005.10 Notice of sampling.

When a sample of a product to be offered for importation has been requested by the Secretary, the District Director of Customs having jurisdiction over the shipment shall, upon the arrival of the shipment, procure the sample and shall give to its owner or consignee prompt notice of the delivery or of the intention to deliver such sample to the Secretary. If the notice so requires, the owner or consignee will hold the shipment of which the sample is typical and not release such shipment until he receives notice of the results of the tests of the sample from the Secretary, stating that the product is in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The District Director of Customs will be given the results of the tests. If the Secretary notifies the District Director of Customs that the product does not meet the requirements of the Act, the District Director of Customs shall require the exportation or destruction of the shipment in accordance with customs laws.
2006 Compensation Schedule for Certain Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.1 
 2006 Compensation Schedule for Certain Named Executive Officers 
 2006 Base
Salary 
  

				
	 James E. Ashton III, Group Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	374,000
	 Robert F. Clarke, Group Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	385,000

 2006 Cash Bonus 
 SunGard Data Systems Inc. has an annual executive incentive compensation (“EIC”) program for its executive officers and other key management employees. The
principal purpose of this program is to link a significant portion of annual cash compensation to financial results and other goals, so as to reward successful performance. 
 The performance goals for certain executive officers’ 2006 annual cash incentive payments take into account the Company’s overall financial and business goals for 2006. In addition, the performance goals
applicable to incentive payments to be earned in 2006 for executive officers are based upon EBITA, which represents actual earnings before interest, taxes and amortization, as further adjusted for certain unusual items. For certain executive
officers, there are additional performance goals specific to either their function or the business they oversee. Depending upon the extent of the achievement of the 2006 targeted performance goal, the actual amount of the 2006 incentive payment will
be higher or lower than the following targeted incentive payment amounts for the following named executive officers: 
  

				
	 James E. Ashton III, Group Chief Executive Office
	  	$	435,000
	 Robert F. Clarke, Group Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	408,000
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 925 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 925

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 20, 2006.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. The bill 
shall be considered as read. The bill shall be debatable for two hours equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. Pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
passage without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5684 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker in 
consonance with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Tele-Communications International, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-16021 and 333-16023) on Form S-8 of Tele-Communications International,
Inc. of our report dated March 20, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Tele-Communications International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K of Tele-Communications International, Inc.




                                                       KPMG Peat Marwick LLP





Denver, Colorado
March 23, 1998
#### § 800.100 Solicitation of applications.

The Secretary will periodically issue an announcement soliciting applications under this regulation. The announcement will be published in the Federal Register, synopsized in the *Commerce Business Daily,* and circulated to minority trade associations and organizations and to the Minority Business Development Agency and Small Business Administration. The announcement will indicate funds availability, eligibility requirements, application instructions, interest rates, maturities and other key loan terms and any applicable restrictions. In such solicitations, DOE shall further indicate that, in the case of applications for loans relating to bids or proposals for contracts with first-tier subcontractors of DOE operating contractors, information necessary to substantiate such applications may be unavailable to DOE from such subcontractors. If the substantiating information is not made available to DOE in a timely manner, the application may be rejected.

[46 FR 44689, Sept. 4, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 17574, Apr. 25, 1983]
#### § 62.18 Denial of request.

If a request for a determination is based on circumstances that are too remote and speculative to allow an informed determination, the Commission may deny the request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 102

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 102 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

#### § 102.57 Greenland turbot (*Reinhardtius hippoglossoides*).

“Greenland turbot” is the common or usual name of the food fish *Reinhardtius hippoglossoides,* a species of *Pleuronectidae* right-eye flounders. The term “halibut” may be associated only with Atlantic halibut (*Hippoglossus hippoglossus*) or Pacific halibut (*Hippoglossus stenolepis*).
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.184 Safeguards contingency plan. ( a ) The requirements of the licensee's safeguards contingency plan for responding to threats and radiological sabotage must be as defined in appendix C to part 73 of this chapter. This plan must include Background, Generic Planning Base, Licensee Planning Base, and Responsibility Matrix, the first four categories of information relating to nuclear facilities licensed under part 50 of this chapter. (The fifth and last category of information, Procedures, does not have to be submitted for approval.)
( b ) The licensee shall prepare and maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with appendix C to 10 CFR part 73 for effecting the actions and decisions contained in the Responsibility Matrix of the licensee's safeguards contingency plan. The licensee shall retain a copy of the current procedures as a record until the Commission terminates the license for which the procedures were developed and, if any portion of the procedures is superseded, retain the superseded material for three years after each change.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 57 FR 33429, July 29, 1992]
Appendix 6 

Acute Impacts Refined Analysis Figures 
Refined Acute Modeling Approach 

 Initial acute screening risk calculations were performed with the HEM-3 model. 

HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is 

assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual could be located at any 

off-site location. The lack of readily available detailed property boundary information 

for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult to determine whether receptors were 

on- or off-site. In the absence of such information, the first ring of polar receptors was 

placed 100 meters from the plant center for many facilities. However, these polar rings 

often transected on-site locations, restricting public access to exposures at these levels 

and thereby overestimating exposures. 

 The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures 

also likely overestimates. To estimate maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor, 

HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations attributed to each source, regardless of 

whether those maximum concentrations occurred during the same hour. In other words, 

HEM-3 assumes that the maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at 

the same time. In actuality, maximum impacts from different sources may occur at 

different times. 

 This appendix addresses refinements to determine the maximum offsite values by 

plotting the HEM-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the facilities. These 

photographs were examined to determine off-site locations that may be accessible to the 

public (e.g., roadways and public buildings.). The attached figures present the estimated 

hazard quotient values (the modeled 1-hour concentration of a pollutant divided by its 

short-term health benchmark) at the polar receptors near the facilities. 

 
Figure 1 – NEI38394 Acute Arsenic Compounds HQ (REL) 
Figure 2 – NEILAT$10672 Acute Arsenic Compounds HQ (REL)
# EUR-Lex - 31989R3847 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989R3847

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 3847/89 of 18 December 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 as regards imports of sweet potatoes intended for uses other than human consumption and originating in the People's Republic of China for 1990 **

*
Official Journal L 374 , 22/12/1989 P. 0005 - 0005 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 30 P. 0259 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 30 P. 0259 *

*****

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3847/89

of 18 December 1989

amending Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 as regards imports of sweet potatoes intended for uses other than human consumption and originating in the People's Republic of China for 1990

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 of 16 May 1988 concerning the arrangements applicable to imports of sweet potatoes and manioc starch intended for certain uses (1), opens an annual tariff quota subject to zero duty for imports into the Community of sweet potatoes intended for uses other than human consumption, covered by CN code 0714 20 90 and originating in the People's Republic of China; whereas the quantities imported under those arrangements should be maintained for 1990 at the level in force in 1989,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The second paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88 is hereby replaced by the following:

'This quota shall be 600 000 tonnes for 1990'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1990.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 1989.

For the Council

The President

R. DUMAS

(1) OJ No L 134, 31. 5. 1988, p. 1.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                            SCS TRANSPORTATION, INC.
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           2003 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

                  WHEREAS, SCS Transportation, Inc. ("SCS") previously adopted
the SCS Transportation, Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Omnibus Incentive Plan
("Plan") for the benefit of certain eligible employees;

                  WHEREAS, Section 20 of the Plan affords the Board of Directors
(the "Board") of SCS the authority to amend the Plan; and

                  WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan, effective
immediately, to afford the Board's Compensation Committee ("Committee")
authority to grant to the non-executive chairman of the Board the cash
equivalent of the awards made under Section 10.1 and 10.3, which awards would
otherwise be payable in Shares.

                  THEREFORE, effective immediately, the Plan is amended as
follows:

         1. A new sentence is added to the end of Section 10.1 to read as
         follows:

         Notwithstanding the preceding, any award made under this Section 10.1
         to the non-executive chairman of the Board may, at the discretion of
         the Committee, be made in cash rather than in Shares.

         2. A new sentence is added to the end of Section 10.3 to read as
         follows:

         Notwithstanding the preceding, any award made under this Section 10.3
         to the non-executive chairman of the Board may, at the discretion of
         the Committee, be made in cash rather than in Shares. The cash award
         shall be equal to the Fair Market Value of the equity award as of the
         date of the award.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Plan has been duly
executed as of the _______ day of July, 2006.


SCS Transportation, Inc.

By:
    -----------------------------
Name:
      ---------------------------
Title:
       --------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 10.205 Electronic media coverage of public administrative proceedings. ( a ) A person may record electronically any open public administrative proceeding, subject to the procedures specified in this guideline. The procedures include a presumption that agency public proceedings are open to the electronic media. Whenever possible, FDA will permit all interested persons access to record agency public administrative proceedings. Restrictions other than those listed in § 10.206 will be imposed only under exceptional circumstances.
( b ) A videotape recording of an FDA public administrative proceeding is not an official record of the proceeding. The only official record is the written transcript of the proceeding, which is taken by the official reporter.
#### § 2800.313 Equipment.

Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351, section 808 (42 U.S.C. 3789), creates a special rule for disposition and use of equipment and supplies purchased by funds made available under that Title, which rule, where applicable, supersedes any conflicting provisions of 2 CFR 200.313. Section 808 currently provides that such equipment and supplies shall vest in the criminal justice agency or nonprofit organization that purchased the property if such agency or nonprofit certifies to the appropriate State office (as indicated in the statute) that it will use the property for criminal justice purposes, and further provides that, if such certification is not made, title to the property shall vest in the State office, which shall seek to have the property used for criminal justice purposes elsewhere in the State prior to using it or disposing of it in any other manner.