alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.26


 


PARTS
ID, INC.


NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY


 


Adopted:
January 29, 2021


 


Annual
Equity Awards: Each non-employee director of PARTS iD, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive an annual
restricted stock unit (“RSU”) grant on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders at which the director
is elected to the board or continues to serve as a director, the number of RSUs calculated by dividing $50,000 by the closing
sale price for a share of the Company’s common stock on the Company’s principal stock exchange on the date of grant.
Each grant will vest in full on the earlier of one year after the date of grant or the date of the next year’s annual meeting
of stockholders, provided the director remains a member of the board as of the vesting date.  RSUs will settle in shares
as soon as practicable after vesting, and in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year following the date of vesting.


 


Annual
Retainers: Each non-employee director of the Company will receive the following annual retainers, as applicable, payable
in quarterly installments, in advance, on the first business day of each calendar quarter:


 


		●	an
                                         annual retainer of $35,000;



 


		●	committee
                                         chair annual fees as follows:



 


	Committee Chair	 	Annual Cash Fee	 
	Audit	 	$	22,500	 
	Compensation	 	$	15,000	 
	Nominating and Corporate Governance	 	$	15,000	 
	Strategy, Technology and Risk Management	 	$	12,500	 



  


		●	committee
                                         membership annual fees (including the chair) as follows:



 


	Committee Members	 	Annual Cash Fee	 
	Audit	 	$	5,000	 
	Compensation	 	$	5,000	 
	Nominating and Corporate Governance	 	$	3,000	 
	Strategy, Technology and Risk Management	 	$	3,000	 



 


		●	the
                                         chair of the Company’s board of directors will receive an additional annual fee
                                         of $35,000.



 


Meeting
Fees: Unless a committee or the board of directors has more than six meetings per calendar year, there will be no meeting
fees.  If there are more than six meetings in one calendar year for an individual committee or the board, additional compensation
will be reviewed by the Compensation Committee at that time.


 


Reimbursement
of Expenses: The Company will reimburse a director’s reasonable expenses in connection with attending board and
committee meetings.





 


For
directors joining the Company during a period between annual meetings, all amounts will be prorated based on the percentage of
the year since the most recent annual meeting of stockholders.
-  Home 
-  Reports and Publications 
-  All Reports and Publications 
-  2002 
-  Clinical Performance Measures for Dialysis Facilities Building on the Experiences of the Dialysis Corporations 

#                     Clinical Performance Measures for Dialysis Facilities Building on the Experiences of the Dialysis Corporations                

01/30/200201/30/2002

##                         Report Materials                    

        -    Full Report (PDF, 1.1 MB) 

----

            Report Type

Evaluation

            HHS Agencies

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

            Issue Areas

 - 

            Target Groups

 - 

            Financial Groups

 - 

### Notice

This report may be subject to section 5274 of the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2023, 117 Pub. L. 263.
#### Roy BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PLEXICO, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-17304.

D.C. No. CV-97-00728-JFM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 2000.

Decided Feb. 20, 2001.

Before ALDISERT,* KOZINSKI,** and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

**

 Following oral argument before Judges Graber and Aldisert, Judge Kosinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher.

MEMORANDUM ***

To determine whether the rights assured Butler by the Eighth Amendment were violated, we must examine “ ‘whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.’ ” *Whitley v. Albers,*475 U.S. 312, 320-321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (quoting *Johnson v. Glick,*481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.1973)).

In *Jeffers v. Gomez,*240 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2001), filed this date, we described, in detail, the disturbance that occurred on September 27,1996 at California State Prison-Sacramento. We rejected the claims of Jeffers, another inmate who was wounded by rifle fire from a different correctional officer. Like Butler, Jeffers alleged Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations under circumstances sub*418stantially similar to those alleged by Butler here. We held that, accepting Jeffers’ version of the facts presented in the summary judgment proceedings, the district court erred in denying the correctional officers’ motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Applying the same reasoning to the case at bar, we hold that Butler failed to prove that Officer Plexico acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” when he fired the shot that wounded him. *Whitley,*475 U.S. at 320-321, 106 S.Ct. 1078. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with a direction to enter judgment in favor of Appellant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

***

 Tjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided for by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 136.416 When should the IHS deny employment or dismiss an employee?

The IHS must deny employment to an individual or dismiss an employee, when the duties and responsibilities of the position the individual person would hold or holds involve regular contact with or control over Indian children, and it has been adjudicated, pursuant to § 136.414 and § 136.415, that the individual has been found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to, any felonious offense, or any of two or more misdemeanor offenses, under Federal, State or Tribal law involving a crime of violence; sexual assault, molestation, exploitation, contact, or prostitution; crimes against persons; or offenses committed against children. The IHS has the discretion to place such an individual in a position, if available, that does not involve regular contact with or control over Indian children, if a determination has been made that such placement would not put Indian children at risk and the individual would be able to perform the duties and responsibilities of this position.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Uruguayan President Lacalle Pou

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Uruguayan President Lacalle Pou							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

November 9, 2021

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman met with Uruguayan President Luis Lacalle Pou today in Montevideo, Uruguay.  Deputy Secretary Sherman and President Lacalle Pou discussed the importance of the strong U.S.-Uruguay bilateral relationship for promoting economic growth, regional security, and clean energy investment, among other areas.  Deputy Secretary Sherman expressed appreciation for Uruguay’s leadership on defending democracy and human rights in the region as well as Uruguay’s regional and global leadership on environmental protection and combating the climate crisis.

 

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonUruguay

Back to Top
§ 1003.160 Waiver of exclusion. ( a ) The OIG will consider a request from the administrator of a Federal health care program for a waiver of an exclusion imposed under this part as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The request must be in writing and from an individual directly responsible for administering the Federal health care program.
( b ) If the OIG subsequently obtains information that the basis for a waiver no longer exists, the waiver will cease and the person will be fully excluded from the Federal health care programs for the remainder of the exclusion period, measured from the time the full exclusion would have been imposed if the waiver had not been granted.
( c ) The OIG will notify the administrator of the Federal health care program whether his or her request for a waiver has been granted or denied.
( d ) If a waiver is granted, it applies only to the program(s) for which waiver is requested.
( e ) The decision to grant, deny, or rescind a waiver is not subject to administrative or judicial review.
[81 FR 88356, Dec. 7, 2016]
#### § 21.47 Examination; anticipation of meeting qualifications.

A potential candidate for appointment in any grade in the Regular Corps may be examined within a period of nine months prior to the date upon which it is anticipated that he will qualify for appointment under this subpart. Upon successful completion of the examination, his name will be entered on a merit roll. In the event that his name, in order of relative standing among all candidates, precedes that of fully qualified candidates, his name, for purpose of appointment, shall be passed over in favor of fully qualified candidates until such time as he becomes fully qualified, but in no event shall he otherwise lose his relative standing on the merit roll, except as provided in § 21.46. If the candidate fails to qualify for appointment at the time that it was anticipated that he would qualify, his name shall be removed from the merit roll.

Provisions Applicable Only to Reserve Corps
- Office Home
- Our Website

HomeBureaus & Offices > Bureau of Administration...Office of Allowances

# Office of Allowances

## 				Our Mission			

					The Office of Allowances develops and coordinates policies, regulations, standards, and procedures to administer the government-wide allowances and benefits program abroad under the Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR).				

Back to Top
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10822

__________________ IN THE MATTER OF: JACK COLE, Debtor. JACK COLE, Appellant,

versus RAY PAYNE; DIANE PAYNE, Appellees.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas (3:94-CV-2013-R)

______________________________________________

April 9, 1996
Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This Court accepts jurisdiction under the rationale of Matter of Cajun Electric Power Coop., Inc., 69 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995), but, after considering the briefs, arguments, and relevant portions of the record, this Court affirms t he district court’s judgment essentially for the reasons given by that court.2 AFFIRMED
# C_2005281EN.01002202.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 — EDP v Commission

(Case T-87/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentration - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market - Portuguese electricity and gas markets - Acquisition of GDP by EDP and Eni - Directive 2003/55/EC - Liberalisation of gas markets - Commitments)

(2005/C 281/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): EDP — Energias de Portugal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by C. Botelho Moniz, R. García-Gallardo, A. Weitbrecht and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Bouquet and M. Schneider, agents)

Defendant(s):

Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): Gas Natural SDG SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by J. Perez-Bustamante Köster and P. Suárez Fernández, lawyers)

Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s):

Application for

for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4715 final of 9 December 2004 declaring incompatible with the common market the concentration by which EDP — Energias de Portugal SA and Eni Portugal Investment SpA proposed to acquire joint control of Gás de Portugal SGPS SA (Case COMP/M.3440 — EDP/ENI/GDP

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders the applicant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the parties to bear their own costs in relation to the intervention. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the parties to bear their own costs in relation to the intervention.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
H. R. 3120

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to witness retaliation, witness

tampering and jury tampering.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title

18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in section 1513—

(A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection

(d); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance at or

testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment

which may be imposed for the offense under this section shall

be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum

term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in

such case.’’;

(2) in section 1512, by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with

a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment

which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that

otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have

been imposed for any offense charged in such case.’’; and

(3) in section 1503(a), by adding at the end the following:

‘‘If the offense under this section occurs in connection with

a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this

section involves the threat of physical force or physical force,

the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided
H. R. 3120—2

by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed

for any offense charged in such case.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 17, 2009 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 29, 2009, (74 FR 19594), Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleCoca Leaves (9040)
IIOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw (9650)
IIConcentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to 
                    ( print page 46230)
                    manufacture bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and § 952(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and § 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: August 21, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-21536 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RENELLE LUBIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1809

[November 30, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard K. Coates, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2005-CF-004891-AXXX-MB.

Glenn H. Mitchell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2005229EN.01003001.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/30

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-268/05)

(2005/C 229/64)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Patrice Vande Velde, resident in Linkebeek (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 25 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 25 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.

Fernandez Tunon

Commission

---
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 annual report of Circuit Research Labs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. McMartin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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) 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 for the periods presented.
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               
|    |  |                                                                                                                                                                               





| | /s/ Robert W. McMartin                                                                   
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Robert W. McMartin
Chief Financial Officer
Circuit Research Labs, Inc. 
November 14, 2006