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

Exhibit 10.30
EVOFEM BIOSCICENCES, INC.


Incentive Compensation Recoupment Policy


In the event Evofem Biosciences, Inc., (the "Company") determines it must restate its financial results as reported in a Form 10-K, Form 10-Q or other report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to correct an accounting error due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the U. S. federal securities laws (a “Restatement”), the Company will seek to recover, at the direction of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Committee") after it has reviewed the facts and circumstances that led to the requirement for the Restatement and the costs and benefits of seeking recovery, incentive compensation (cash and equity-based) awarded or paid within one year following the filing of the financial report giving rise to the Restatement to a covered officer whose intentional misconduct caused or contributed to the need for the Restatement for a fiscal period if a lower award or payment would have been made to such covered officer based upon the restated financial results. The Committee will determine in its discretion the amount, if any, the Company will seek to recover from such covered officer. The Company may offset the recoupment amount against current or future incentive and non-incentive compensation and through cancellation of unvested or vested equity awards. In addition, the Committee may, to the extent permitted by law, take other remedial and recovery action, as determined by the Committee. The recoupment of incentive compensation under this Policy is in addition to any other right or remedy available to the Company. 


For purposes of this Policy, the term "covered officer" shall mean executive officers of the Company as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such other senior executives as may be determined by the Committee. This Policy extends to individuals who were covered officers on or after adoption of the Policy but ceased being a covered officer before a Restatement triggering recoupment under this Policy occurs. 


The Committee shall have full and final authority to make all determinations under this Policy. The Company shall take such action as it deems necessary or appropriate to implement this Policy, including requiring all covered officers to acknowledge the rights and powers of the Company and the Committee hereunder. 










			
	This Policy shall be effective as of the date adopted by the Board of Directors as set forth below and shall apply to incentive compensation that is approved, awarded or granted on or after that date. 


Adopted: By the Board of Directors on February 25, 2021.
HomeOffice of Diversity and InclusionRemarks & Releases...Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026

# Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan 2022 – 2026

## Discover More

Download the Strategy (PDF)

Access the Fact Sheet

Read tHE EXECUTIVE ORDER

## Message from the Secretary of State

The State Department is our nation’s oldest cabinet agency, our nation’s lead foreign affairs agency, and its employees are the face of the United States to the rest of the world.  In order to effectively pursue our foreign policy goals and ensure our national security, it is imperative we create a workforce that truly reflects the country we represent.  

Our country’s diversity is our greatest strength.  When we fully leverage everyone and everything our nation has to offer, our foreign policy is stronger, smarter, and more creative.  As I said in my confirmation hearing, I will measure the success of my tenure based on how well we can recruit and retain a workforce that looks like America.  Within the first few months of my administration, I appointed the Department’s first-ever stand-alone Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer, who reports directly to me and leads the newly created Secretary’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.  I also created the Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Council to help achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the following Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Strategic Plan.  

Together, we will ensure that the Department of State is a leader in government-wide efforts to advance DEIA goals for the federal workforce.  In doing that, we will also be able to ensure that the Department itself is in the strongest possible position to deliver for the U.S. people in an increasingly diverse, complex, and interconnected world.   

## 						Discover More					

		Historic Plan to Advance Equity in U.S. Foreign Policy			 

		Diversity Is an Essential Component of the U.S. Diplomatic Corps			 

		Honoring an Ancestor, Carrying Forward a Legacy			 

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene

# 											Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene									

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

March 25, 2024

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:

Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Mongolian Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai in Ulaanbaatar on March 22 to discuss cooperation on bilateral, regional, and global issues.  The Deputy Secretary highlighted deepening U.S.-Mongolia political, economic, and people-to-people ties, and the enduring values that bind our two countries as Indo-Pacific democracies.  The United States is investing in the relationship through development projects such as the joint $462 million Millennium Challenge Corporation water compact; assistance programs like USAID’s $900,000 support to Mongolian communities negatively affected by severe winter weather; and our partnerships on space, critical minerals supply chains, and renewable energy solutions.  The Deputy Secretary further underscored robust U.S. support for English-language instruction and capacity building in Mongolia.

In Ulaanbaatar, the Deputy Secretary also met with Foreign Minister Battsetseg and Ministry of Foreign Affairs State Secretary Ankhbayar, held a roundtable with space and technology executives, and visited a woman-owned cashmere factory supported by a $5 million loan from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

The Deputy Secretary’s visit to Ulaanbaatar, part of his first overseas trip since assuming office, highlighted the Strategic Third Neighbor Partnership between the United States and Mongolia and the enduring friendship between the American and Mongolian people.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateEconomic Prosperity and Trade PolicyHumanitarian AidIndo-PacificMillennium ChallengeMongoliaOffice of the SpokespersonU.S. Agency for International Development

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                    OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                      DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                116,000
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       5,680,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        5,412,000
<INVENTORY>                                                            57,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      441,000
<PP&E>                                                                752,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        221,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      3,894,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              17,433,000
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                            420,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        3,894,000
<SALES>                                                                61,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      309,000
<CGS>                                                                 904,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       3,432,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      (64,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    103,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (3,162,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (3,162,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (3,162,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (0.13)


</TABLE>
#### § 137.137 If the 45 day review period or extension thereto, has expired, and the Tribes offer is deemed accepted by operation of law, are there any exceptions to this rule?

No, there are no exceptions to this rule if the 45 day review period or extension thereto, has expired, and the Tribe's offer is deemed accepted by operation of law.
#### Doris M. BAKER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 52331.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 28, 1981.

Thomas D. Berry, Jr., Wittmann & Berry, Gulfport, for appellant.

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; J. Ruble Griffin, Judge.

REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED.

PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.
#### § 403.900 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this subpart implement section 1128G of the Act. These regulations apply to applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations and describe the requirements and procedures for applicable manufacturers to report payments or other transfers of value provided to covered recipients, as well as for applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report ownership or investment interests held by physicians or immediate family members of physicians in such entities.
#### § 137.176 Are Tribal records subject to the Freedom of Information Act and Federal Privacy Act?

No, except to the extent that a Self-Governance Tribe specifies otherwise in its compact or funding agreement, the records of the Self-Governance Tribe shall not be considered Federal records for purposes of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
§ 3.540 Evidence. ( a ) The ALJ must determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this subpart, the ALJ is not bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, for example, to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ must exclude irrelevant or immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence must be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement is inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or acts other than those at issue in the instant case is admissible in order to show motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, preparation, identity, lack of mistake, or existence of a scheme. This evidence is admissible regardless of whether the crimes, wrongs, or acts occurred during the statute of limitations period applicable to the acts or omissions that constitute the basis for liability in the case and regardless of whether they were referenced in the Secretary's notice of proposed determination under § 3.420.
( h ) The ALJ must permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
( i ) All documents and other evidence offered or taken for the record must be open to examination by both parties, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
No. 99-315.

#### Cooper *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2980 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2980

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to stalking.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2980

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to stalking.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Stalking Punishment and 
Prevention Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. PUNISHMENT OF INTERSTATE STALKING.

    (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after section 2261 the following:
``Sec. 2261A. Interstate stalking
    ``Whoever travels across a State line or within the special 
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the 
intent to injure or harass another person, and in the course of, or as 
a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the 
death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(g)(3) of 
this title) to, that person or a member of that person's immediate 
family (as defined in section 115 of this title) shall be punished as 
provided in section 2261 of this title.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 2261(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting ``or section 2261A'' after ``this 
        section''.
            (2) Sections 2261(b) and 2262(b) of title 18, United States 
        Code, are each amended by striking ``offender's spouse or 
        intimate partner'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``victim''.
            (3) The chapter heading for chapter 110A of title 18, 
        United States Code, is amended by inserting ``AND STALKING'' 
        after ``VIOLENCE''.
            (4) The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of 
        title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking

``110A.    Domestic violence................................     2261''
        and inserting:

``110A.    Domestic violence and stalking...................    2261''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2261 the following new item:

``2261A. Interstate stalking.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                                         119,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,916,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,245
<INVENTORY>                                  5,787,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,838,953
<PP&E>                                      29,822,587
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,451,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,586,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,333,503
<BONDS>                                        250,000
<COMMON>                                       258,065
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,586,448
<SALES>                                     11,611,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,611,410
<CGS>                                       10,259,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,547,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.01
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3029 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3029

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the United States courthouse in Washington, District of 
  Columbia, as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 3rd Street and Constitution 
Avenue, Northwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be 
designated and known as the ``E. Barrett Prettyman United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``E. Barrett 
Prettyman United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Linda Nave,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
#### Warren LEVY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1979.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and John A. Naser, Asst. Public Defender, Bar-tow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Warren Levy brings this appeal to challenge his sentencing as an habitual offender. The record does not reflect that a finding was made that the sentencing of Levy as an habitual offender was necessary for the protection of the public. It is required that this finding be made on the record before one may be sentenced as an habitual offender. *Ibbitson v. State,*366 So.2d 499 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); *Grimmett v. State,*357 So.2d 461 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Consequently, we vacate the sentence and remand this matter to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur.
§ 9.4 Criteria for determining effects of imports on national security. ( a ) In determining the effect on the national security of imports of the article which is the subject of the investigation, the Secretary is required to take into consideration the following: ( 1 ) Domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements including restoration and rehabilitation.
( 2 ) The capacity of domestic industries to meet such projected requirements, including existing and anticipated availabilities of: ( i ) Human resources.
( ii ) Products.
( iii ) Raw materials.
( iv ) Production equipment and facilities.
( v ) Other supplies and services essential to the national defense.
( 3 ) The requirement of growth of such industries and such supplies and services including the investment, exploration and development necessary to assure capacity to meet projected defense requirements.
( 4 ) The effect which the quantities, availabilities, character and uses of imported goods have or will have on such industries and the capacity of the United States to meet national security requirements.
( 5 ) The economic welfare of the Nation as it is related to our national security, including the impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of individual domestic industries. In determining whether such impact may impair the national security, any substantial unemployment, decrease in revenues of government, loss of skills or investment, or other serious effects shall be considered.
( b ) The Secretary shall also consider other relevant factors in determining whether the national security is affected by imports of the article.
[39 FR 10898, Mar. 22, 1974]
# Suriname

58 items

        -    Report  		Suriname	  March 3, 2017 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		INCLE-CBSI Activities – Summative Evaluation (Summary)	  September 18, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (15-204.1) – Defense Agreement Regarding the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative	  February 4, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (14-1209) – Air Transport Agreement	  December 9, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (05-1020) – Agreement Regarding the Status of United States Personnel Who May Be Temporarily Present in Suriname	  October 20, 2005 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (13016) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Maritime Law Enforcement	  August 26, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (12913) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  December 23, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Suriname (96-202) – Status of Forces Agreement	  February 2, 1996 

previous page1…456

Back to Top
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Taezer Thompson

, * From the 35 th District Court

o f Brown County,

Trial Court No

. C R 25124

Vs. No. 11

- 19

- 00 413

- CR * November 1 2

, 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J

. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.