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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 325 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 325

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the 
 reduction of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone 
   nonattainment areas designated as severe, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Manzullo (for himself, Mr. Archer, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
   Crane, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
Hunter, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Klink, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Smith of 
New Jersey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Walker, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, 
 Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Rohrabacher) introduced the following bill; which 
               was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the 
 reduction of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone 
   nonattainment areas designated as severe, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

    Section 182(d)(1)(b) of the Clean Air Act is amended by to read as 
follows:
            ``(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a 
        revision at any time requiring employers in such area to 
        implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 
        miles traveled by employees. Such revision shall be developed 
        in accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator 
        pursuant to section 108(f) and may require that employers in 
        such area increase average passenger occupancy per vehicle in 
        commuting trips between home and the workplace during peak 
        travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator may specify 
        average vehicle occupancy rates which vary for locations within 
        a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, business district) 
        or among nonattainment areas reflecting existing occupancy 
        rates and the availability of high occupancy modes. The 
        revision may require employers subject to a vehicle occupancy 
        requirement to submit a compliance plan to demonstrate 
        compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w22xby






EXHIBIT 10.22(b)




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF DENNIS J. LETHAM




     WHEREAS, Anixter Inc. (the “Company”) and Dennis J. Letham (“Executive”) have entered into an
employment agreement effective January 1, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”) which govern the terms
and conditions of Executive’s continued employment by Company, and



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement to comply
with the final Treasury Regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”).



     NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 21 of the Employment Agreement, and pursuant to the
power delegated to the undersigned, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended effective December
23, 2008 as noted below.




	1.	 	Section 1 “Definitions” is amended by deleting paragraph (w) “Good Reason” in its entirety
and replacing it with the following:






          (w) “Good Reason” means any of the following conditions (not consented
to in advance by Executive in writing or ratified subsequently by Executive
in writing), but only if the Board receives notice of the condition from
Executive within ninety (90) days of its initial existence and such
condition remain(s) in effect thirty (30) days after written notice to the
Board from Executive of his intention to terminate his Employment for Good
Reason which specifically identifies such condition:




               (i) Any material breach by Company of this Agreement with respect to
its obligation to pay compensation, or provide benefits, to Executive;




               (ii) Any material, adverse change in Executive’s authority, as measured
against Executive’s authority immediately prior to such change;




               (iii) Assigning Executive duties which constitute a material adverse
change from, and are inconsistent with, the duties of the Chief Financial
Officer of Company as historically defined, or requiring Executive to report
other than to the Board; or




               (iv) Any relocation of Company’s principal business office to a location that
is more than 100 miles from Company’s current principal business office during the
Protected Period following a Change in Control.



1









 






	2.	 	Section 11 “Post-Termination Cooperation” is amended by adding the following sentence to the
end thereof:






Both Executive and Company reasonably anticipate that any such assistance provided
in accordance with this Section shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the average
level of services Executive performed during the thirty-six (36) month period
immediately preceding Executive’s Termination.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this amendment to be executed on its behalf by a duly
authorized officer of the Company this 23rd day of December, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ANIXTER INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Robert Eck
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Robert Eck
	 

	 	Title:
	 	President & CEO
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Dennis J. Letham
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Dennis J. Letham
	 	 	 






2
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Thomas V. Geimer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Accelr8 Technology Corporation (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Accelr8 Technology
Corporation;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:  December 15, 2009


/s/ Thomas V. Geimer
-----------------------------------
Thomas V. Geimer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2006010EN.01002501.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/25

---

Action brought on 10 October 2005 — Wilms v Commission

(Case T-386/05)

(2006/C 10/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Günter Wilms (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award the applicant two Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Director General rejecting his internal appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the formal proposal of the Director General of the Legal Service to award the applicant two Directorate-General priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise, which was confirmed and made definitive by the decision of the Director General rejecting his internal appeal;

| — | annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ (‘PPCP’) special priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Director General of Personnel and Administration not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ (‘PPCP’) special priority points for the 2004 promotion exercise;

| — | annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 17 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 36 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A5 during that exercise; the list of officials who were awarded PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A6 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 for the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Director General of Personnel and Administration to award him a total of 17 points for the 2004 promotion exercise and a total of 36 points for the purpose of promotion to Grade A5 during that exercise; the list of officials who were awarded PPCPs; the merit list of Grade A6 officials for the 2004 promotion exercise after Promotion Committees; the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 for the 2004 promotion exercise and, in any event, the decision not to enter his name in those lists

| — | annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances similar pleas to those advanced in Case T-311/04 (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 44

1

---
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance







Exhibit 10.33




Noble Corporation

Summary of Directors’ Compensation




Annual Retainer. Each director of Noble Corporation (the “Company”) who is not an employee of the Company or one of its
subsidiaries (a “Non-Employee Director”) receives an annual retainer as follows:




	 	•	 	$50,000.







	 	•	 	20% is paid in Ordinary Shares of the Company pursuant to the Noble Corporation Equity Compensation
Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the “Equity Compensation Plan”).







	 	•	 	Non-Employee Directors may elect to receive up to all of the balance in Ordinary Shares or cash.
Non-Employee Directors make elections on a quarterly basis.







	 	•	 	The number of Ordinary Shares to be issued under the Equity Compensation Plan in any particular
quarter is generally determined using the average of the daily closing prices of the Ordinary Shares for
the last 15 consecutive trading days of the previous quarter.






Board Meeting Fees. In addition to the annual retainer received by Non-Employee Directors described above, all
directors receive fees for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended as follows:




	 	•	 	Non-Employee Directors — $2,000 per meeting attended







	 	•	 	Employee Directors — $100 per meeting attended






Committee Fees. In addition to the annual retainer and meeting fees described above, each Non-Employee Director
receives compensation in respect of his or her service on committees of the Board of Directors as follows:




	 	•	 	Annual Committee retainers







	 	•	 	Audit Committee Chair — $15,000 per year







	 	•	 	Compensation Committee Chair — $12,500 per year







	 	•	 	All other Committee Chairs — $10,000 per year







	 	•	 	Committee meeting fees







	 	•	 	Audit Committee — $2,500 per meeting attended







	 	•	 	All other Committees — $2,000 per meeting attended




 


1









 












Equity Compensation. In addition to the compensation described above, each Non-Employee Director receives equity
compensation under the Noble Corporation 1992 Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Share Plan for Non-Employee
Directors, as amended (the “1992 Plan”) as follows:




	 	•	 	An annual award of Restricted Shares or unrestricted Ordinary Shares in an amount determined by the
Board of Directors annually but not to exceed an aggregate of 8,000 shares per Non-Employee Director.







	 	•	 	Each such award of Restricted Shares or unrestricted Ordinary Shares will be made on a date selected
by the Board of Directors, or if no such date is selected by the Board of Directors, the date on which
the Board of Directors takes action approving such award.






Employee Directors. Employee Directors do not receive any equity compensation in consideration of their service on the
Board of Directors.



Other. All directors are reimbursed for travel, lodging and related expenses they may incur in attending meetings of
the Board of Directors and Committees.



 


2
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Roger B. Plank, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Apache Offshore Investment Partnership; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Roger B. Plank Roger B. Plank
- Office Home
- About Us
- Defining Racial Equity
- Remarks and Releases
- Global Anti-Racism Champions
- Key Stakeholders
- FAQs

HomeOffice of the Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice...Defining Racial Equity

# 									Defining Racial Equity							

> 
Inequity is a national security challenge with global consequences. The systematic exclusion of individuals from historically marginalized and vulnerable groups from full participation in economic, social, and civic life impedes equity globally, while fueling corruption, economic migration, distrust, and authoritarianism.
Secretary Blinken, April 14, 2022

Advancing racial equity and promoting inclusive democracy are critical to ensuring and bolstering our nation’s peace and security. Equity addresses the specific and *proportionate* needs of certain persons or populations to attain fair and just treatment and outcomes, as opposed to equality, which emphasizes the same or equal treatment for all persons or groups regardless of specific circumstances or needs.  

Equality in dignity and rights for all people is the goal. Equity is the means to achieve that goal.  

Back to Top
#### ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jose A. (Tony) PEREIRA, Jr., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 77-1932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1979.

Edna L. Caruso and Louisa Smith-Adam of Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*865Edward A. Perse of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, and P. J. Carrol & Associates, P. A., Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment in favor of ap-pellees is reversed on the authority of *Dewberry*v. *Auto-Owners Insurance Company,*363 So. 1077 (Fla.1978).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ„ and LEF-FLER, KENNETH L., Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 12.01

LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. and SUBSIDIARIES  COMPUTATION of RATIO of EARNINGS to FIXED CHARGES  (Dollars in millions)  (Unaudited)

|                                                    |                     | For the Twelve Months Ended November 30 |        | For the Nine
Months Ended
August 31
2002
|--------------------------------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------ | ----------------------------------------
|
|Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations         |                     | $                                       | 593    |                                         
|Add: Fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest) |                     |                                         | 12,233 |                                         
|                                                    |                     |                                         |        |                                         
|Pre-tax earnings before fixed charges               |                     |                                         | 12,826 |                                         
|                                                    |                     |                                         |        |                                         
|Fixed charges:                                      |                     |                                         |        |                                         
|                                                    | Interest            |                                         |        | 12,216                                  
|                                                    | Other (a)           |                                         |        | 19                                      
|                                                    |                     |                                         |        |                                         
|                                                    | Total fixed charges |                                         | $      | 12,235                                  
|                                                    |                     |                                         |        |                                         
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                  |                     |                                         | 1.05   |                                         

---

---

QuickLinks
# C_2006131EN.01002101.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf) — Hans Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-499/04) (1)

1

(Transfer of undertakings - Directive 77/187/EEC - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer)

(2006/C 131/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hans Werhof

Applicant:

Defendant: Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88) — Obligations of the transferee with regard to retention of more favourable pay conditions resulting from a collective agreement applicable to the transferor and the employee at the time of the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as not precluding, in a situation where the contract of employment refers to a collective agreement binding the transferor, that the transferee, who is not party to such an agreement, is not bound by collective agreements subsequent to the one which was in force at the time of the transfer of the business.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.

1

---