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






Exhibit 10.iii.b
DESCRIPTION OF MOSAIC MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Pursuant to the Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) of The Mosaic Company (the “Company”), key managers of the Company and its subsidiaries, including executive officers, are eligible for annual cash incentive compensation based upon the level of attainment of business performance goals that are pre-established by the Board of Directors of the Company, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. 
The incentive measures and their respective weightings for executive officers for 2017 are described below: 
		
	•
	Operating earnings/ROIC:  this measure is based on a percentage, or sharing rate, of consolidated operating earnings before specified items. The sharing rate varies based upon the level of the Company’s return on invested capital, or ROIC. This measure has a weighting of 30% for executive officers.


		
	•
	Free cash flow:  this measure is based on consolidated net cash provided by operating activities before specified items, and has a 20% weighting for executive officers.


		
	•
	Controllable operating costs:  this measure is based on controllable operating costs per tonne of products produced by the Company’s Phosphates and Potash business segments. This measure has a 30% weighting for executive officers.


		
	•
	Safety:  the safety measure is based on the effectiveness of the Company’s Environmental, Health and Safety management system and has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.


		
	•
	Premium product sales: this measure is based on metric tonnes of premium products for which the Company recognizes revenue, on a consolidated basis.  This measure has a weighting of 10% for executive officers.  


Threshold, target and maximum payout levels are set for the free cash flow, controllable operating costs, safety and premium product sales measures based upon the extent to which the specified performance goals are attained.
# Table5

Table 5. Mineralogy of all soil samples collected in 2003, 2004, and 2007, lower Rio Grande valley, Texas - Continued.		

Table 5. Mineralogy of all soil samples collected in 2003, 2004, and 2007, lower Rio Grande valley, Texas.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 1915** 

MAGDA M. ZIDAN ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Susan K. Gauvey , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 01792

- SKG )

Submitted : November 20 , 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Magda M. Zidan, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa O’Mara Arnquist, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Pikesville, Maryland; Michael O’Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Diane Carroll Bustos, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Magda M. Zidan appeals from the magistrate judge’s

order * granting summary judgment in fa vor of Defendant in her
employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by

the magistrate judge

. Zidan v. Maryland , No . 1:10

- cv
- 01792

- SKG
(D. Md. July 17, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
38430.

#### HEIMAN *et al.*v. WYNN.

Bell, Judge.

The Court of Appeals certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Do the provisions of *Code*§ 110-113, *Code Ann.*(Acts 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 440, 444; 1957, pp. 224, 236), which read in part as follows: ‘Whenever a motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of all the evidence is denied, or for any reason is not granted, a party who has moved for a directed verdict, within 30 days after the reception of verdict, may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for directed verdict; . . . *’*by the use of the specific language providing for the making of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, have the effect of superseding the holdings in the cases of *Hines v. McLellan,*117 Ga. 845; *Durden v. Henderson,*212 Ga. 807; *Southwind Trucking Co. v. Harvey,*96 Ga. App. 715; *City of Albany v. Humber,*101 Ga. App. 276, 279, and all similar cases and cases based thereon, to the extent that it is now proper for a defendant to make a legal motion for a directed verdict in a case where the plaintiff has presented evidence and closed his case and where the defend*205ant elects to present no evidence and announces in open court that he has closed his case?”

Decided March 2, 1961.

*Hurt, Gaines, Baird, Peek & Peabody, Joe C. Freeman, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Harris Bullock, Kyle Yancey,*contra.

By its decision of February 9, 1.961, in the case of *Heiman v. Wynn,*216 Ga. 569 (118 S. E. 2d 478), the Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, and held that “The enactment of procedure for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict *(Code Ann.*§ 110-113, Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 440, 444; 1957, pp. 224, 236), has not changed the rule so as now to permit a defendant in a civil case, upon the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, to close his case without offering any evidence and thereupon make a motion for a directed verdict.”

In the case before us the defendant did not comply with the requirements of the law as to the making of a legal motion for a directed verdict, and accordingly the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the mistrial lacked this essential condition precedent.

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the mistrial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.*
§ 211.150 Distribution procedures. Written procedures shall be established, and followed, describing the distribution of drug products. They shall include: ( a ) A procedure whereby the oldest approved stock of a drug product is distributed first. Deviation from this requirement is permitted if such deviation is temporary and appropriate.
( b ) A system by which the distribution of each lot of drug product can be readily determined to facilitate its recall if necessary.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
      Keith
      A. Meister, Principal Executive Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the
      General Partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (the “Registrant”), certify that, to
      the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Icahn Enterprises L.P.,
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 of the
      Registrant (the “Report”):




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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
      Registrant.




/s/
                Keith A. MeisterKeith
                A MeisterPrincipal
                Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board of Icahn Enterprises
                G.P.
                Inc., the General Partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P.


Date:
      November 5, 2008
§ 520.763a Dithiazanine tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 10, 50, 100, or 200 milligrams (mg) dithiazanine iodide.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 069043 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Indications for use and amount.* Administer orally immediately after feeding as follows: ( i ) For large roundworms (*Toxocara canis, Toxascaris leonina*): 10 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight for 3 to 5 days;
( ii ) For hookworms (*Ancylostoma caninum, Uncinaria stenocephala*) and whipworms (*Trichuris vulpis*): 10 mg/lb of body weight for 7 days;
( iii ) For Strongyloides (*Strongyloides canis, Strongyloides stercoralis*): 10 mg/lb of body weight for 10 to 12 days;
( iv ) For heartworm microfilariae (*Dirofilaria immitus*): 3 to 5 mg/lb of body weight for 7 to 10 days. Treatment for heartworm microfilariae should follow 6 weeks after therapy for adult worms.
( 2 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 28820, May 20, 2014, as amended at 83 FR 48945, Sept. 28, 2018]
#### § 20.25 Retroactive application of regulations.

The provisions of this part apply to all records in Food and Drug Administration files.
§ 3001.20 Does this part apply to me? This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in Subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 (*see* table at 2 CFR 182.115(b)) apply to you if you are a— ( a ) Recipient of a DHS grant or cooperative agreement; or
( b ) DHS awarding official.
38840.

#### TREADWELL v. CITY OF SOCIAL CIRCLE.

Townsend, Presiding Judge.

1. *Code*§ 19-501 provides in part that in certiorari proceedings “in all cases when the error complained of is an error in law which must finally govern the case, and the court shall be satisfied there is no question of fact involved which makes it necessary to send the case back for a new hearing before the tribunal below, it shall be the duty of the said judge to make a final decision in said case, without sending it back to the tribunal below.” In all cases where the facts are undisputed and a question of law only is involved, it is error to remand the case to the trial court without rendering a final decision. *Ederheimer, Stein & Co. v. Carson,*14 Ga. App. 541, 542 (81 S. E. 815); *Rogers v.*Echols, 50 Ga. App. 711 (8) (179 S. E. 131). .

*2)*The defendant was charged and tried in the Recorder’s Cpurt of the City of Social Circle for operating a business without a license on September 14, 1960. The answer of the trial judge certifies that he was convicted under the city ordinance set out in the application for certiorari, which is an ordinance “Providing for business license taxes for business transacted in the City of Social Circle for the fiscal year beginning January 1,1952, and ending December 31, 1952” and which provides it shall be unlawful to carry on the businesses therein stated “without first applying to the" clerk and obtaining a license for carrying on said business or occupation ás may be subject to the City of Social Circle business license tax for the *674year 1952.” “The unambiguous words of a criminal statute are not to be altered by judicial construction so as to punish one not otherwise within its reach.” Viereck v. U. S., 318 U. S. 236 (6) (63 S. Ct. 561, 87 L. Ed. 734); *Waldrowp v. State,*198 Ga. 144, 145 (30 S. E. 2d 896, 153 A. L. R. 914). The ordinance in question clearly limits its efficacy to the calendar year 1952; nowhere is it made applicable to any other year. Accordingly, since it was not in effect in the year 1960, an act committed in 1960 does not in any event come within its terms and the conviction was contrary to law.

Decided May 12, 1961.

*Alfred A. Quillian,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. L. Preston,*contra.

3. *Hardy v. Mayor &c. of Eatonton,*128 Ga. 27 (2) (57 S. E. 99) and similar cases cited by the defendant in error are not in point here. While it is true that one who wishes to challenge the validity of an ordinance must do so in the trial court and at the first opportunity, no contention is made here that the ordinance of 1952 was not a valid ordinance, but only that the defendant cannot be convicted thereunder on the undisputed facts of this case.

The judge of the superior court did not err in holding that the judgment of the recorder’s court should be set aside. He did err in directing that a new trial be had instead of entering up a final judgment in favor of the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 11, 2000


                              BANKFIRST CORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


        Tennessee                 001-14417            58-1790903
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission        (I.R.S. Employer
      of incorporation)          File Number)      Identification No.)


           625 Market Street
         Knoxville, Tennessee                                 37902
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (Address of principal executive offices)                   (Zip Code)

   Registrant's telephone number, including area code    423.595.1100


         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report):
                                 Not applicable


<PAGE>




Item 5.  Other Events.

         BankFirst Corporation (the "Company") announced on January 11, 2000
that its Board of Directors has authorized the Company to acquire up to 500,000
shares of its Common Stock, representing up to approximately 4.4% of the
11,275,600 current total common shares outstanding.

         The shares will be acquired from time to time in open market
transactions, in block purchases or otherwise, and will be available for general
corporate purposes. The timing, volume and price of purchases will be at the
discretion of management and the Company's Board of Directors, and will also be
contingent upon overall financial and market conditions.

         A copy of the press release dated January 11, 2000 regarding the Stock
Repurchase Plan is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto, and is hereby incorporated
herein by reference.


Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits

      (c)   Exhibits

            99.1  Press release issued January 11, 2000.


SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



                                           BANKFIRST CORPORATION
                                           by


Date:  January 11, 2000                    /s/ C. David Allen
                                           ---------------------------
                                           C. David Allen
                                           Chief Financial Officer


                                       -2-
**Exhibit
      32**





**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AMCOL
      International Corporation (the “Company”) certifies that the quarterly report on
      Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2008 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date: 
                November 10, 2008
            /s/ Lawrence E. WashowLawrence
                E. Washow
              Chief
                Executive OfficerDate: 
                November 10, 2008
            /s/ Donald W. PearsonDonald
                W. Pearson
              Chief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997             DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997             MAR-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,911                  38,420
<SECURITIES>                                    11,882                   6,280
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,399                  55,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,708                   1,850
<INVENTORY>                                     59,779                  59,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,124                 179,580
<PP&E>                                         124,946                 107,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,612                  48,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,192                 247,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,477                  37,622
<BONDS>                                         64,750                  14,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           113                     113
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,756                 194,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,192                 247,289
<SALES>                                        265,279                  63,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,279                  63,303
<CGS>                                          133,925                  31,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,925                  31,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               147,434                  35,055
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   241                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,281                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,080)                 (3,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,318                   1,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,398)                 (4,479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,398)                 (4,479)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.13)                  (0.43)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.13)                  (0.43)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>REFLECTS THE ADOPTION IN FOURTH QUARTER 1997 OF FAS 128, A NEW STANDARD OF
COMPUTING AND PRESENTING BOTH BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
••"•RARTMENTOF 

. iANSPORWlON 

1 OPERATIONS 

SERVED NOVEMBER 2, 2010 /-O "OV -3 A S: 2^ 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10GL0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA 2010-0539 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Amended Complaint of Complainant Federal Aviation Administration 

(hereinafter "Complainant") was filed on May 20, 2010. Respondent Federal Express, 

Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had earlier filed a Request for Hearing. 

On October 29, 2010, Respondent withdrew its Request for Hearing and 

requested dismissal, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 
2 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. I 

j/lciLJl C.(j^rc€h^> 

Richard G. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

^} 
FAA Docket No. CP10GL0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Courtney E. Felts, Respondent's Counsel 

Staff Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3"* Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125-8800 

TEL: 901-434-8632 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Great; Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines,IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        [COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Cybex Computer Products Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-10989) of our 
reports dated April 22, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial 
statements and financial statement schedule of Cybex Computer Products 
Corporation as of March 31, 1996 and 1997, and for each of the three years in 
the period ended March 31, 1997.



                                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Birmingham, Alabama
June 26, 1997