alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.28

ADAPTEC, INC.

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

Cash Compensation

The following table
lists our non-employee director cash compensation policy.



|                                            |  |                    |        |     |                 |   |                       |  |                                    |       |  |   |      
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ------ | --- | --------------- | - | --------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- | ----- |  | - | -----
|Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation (1)
|                                            |  | Board of Directors |        |     | Audit Committee |   | CompensationCommittee |  | Governance andNominating Committee
|Member Annual Retainer                      |  | $                  | 26,000 |     |                 | $ | 5,000                 |  | $                                  | 3,500 |  | $ | 2,250
|Per-Meeting Retainer (2)                    |  | $                  | 2,000  |     |                 | $ | 1,200                 |  | $                                  | 1,200 |  | $ | 1,200
|Chairperson Annual Retainer                 |  | $                  | 36,000 | (3) |                 | $ | 10,000                |  | $                                  | 7,000 |  | $ | 4,500



|(1) | Board members serving on other Board committees that are not permanent Board committees may receive additional compensation, as determined by the Board.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Chairperson of the Board and each Board committee may assess a reduced per-meeting retainer.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | This amount includes the $26,000 member annual retainer.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------

Equity Compensation

Non-employee
directors are eligible to participate in the Adaptec, Inc. 2006 Director Plan (the Plan). Awards under the Plan are discretionary and are determined by the Board.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of field hearings.

# DATES:

(1.) September 16, 2009: field hearing, Independence, Ohio (1 p.m.) (2.) September 23, 2009, field hearing, Bronx, New York.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ann C. Fisher, 202-789-6803 or                         *Ann.Fisher@prc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This notice informs the public of the Commission's intention to hold public field hearings to supplement the record in this proceeding. The first field hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at the Independence (Ohio) Civic Center. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. and to conclude at 4 p.m. The address for the Independence Civic Center is 6363 Selig Drive, Independence, Ohio 44131.

The second field hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at O'Keefe Commons in O'Hare Hall on Fordham University's Rose Hill Campus. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. and to conclude at 4 p.m. The address for O'Hare Hall is 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10458.

The format for presentations at the field hearings will consist of opening remarks by Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway and other Commissioners, testimony from invited witnesses, a question-and-answer session, and closing remarks. Witness lists and any changes affecting the dates, times or locations for the field hearings will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

                    The public is invited to attend the field hearings. Any attendee who needs special accommodations or has other questions about the field hearings should contact Ann C. Fisher, Director of Public Affairs and Government Relations, 202-789-6803 or                     *Ann.Fisher@prc.gov,*                     in advance.                

Dated: September 10, 2009.

Judith M. Grady,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-22268 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
§ 488.1035 Ongoing responsibilities of a CMS-approved home infusion therapy accrediting organization. A home infusion therapy accreditation organization approved by CMS must carry out the following activities on an ongoing basis: ( a ) Provide CMS with all of the following in written format (either electronic or hard copy): ( 1 ) Copies of all home infusion therapy accreditation surveys, together with any survey-related information that CMS may require (including corrective action plans and summaries of findings with respect to unmet CMS requirements).
( 2 ) Notice of all accreditation decisions.
( 3 ) Notice of all complaints related to providers or suppliers.
( 4 ) Information about all home infusion therapy accredited suppliers against which the home infusion therapy accreditation organization has taken remedial or adverse action, including revocation, withdrawal, or revision of the providers or suppliers accreditation.
( 5 ) The home infusion therapy accrediting organization must provide, on an annual basis, summary data specified by CMS that relate to the past year's accreditation activities and trends.
( 6 ) Notice of any proposed changes in the home infusion therapy accrediting organization's accreditation standards or requirements or survey process. If the home infusion therapy accrediting organization implements the changes before or without CMS' approval, CMS may withdraw its approval of the accrediting organization.
( b ) Within 30 calendar days after a change in CMS requirements, the home infusion therapy accrediting organization must submit an acknowledgment of receipt of CMS' notification to CMS.
( c ) The home infusion therapy accrediting organization must permit its surveyors to serve as witnesses if CMS takes an adverse action based on accreditation findings.
( d ) Within 2 business days of identifying a deficiency of an accredited home infusion therapy supplier that poses immediate jeopardy to a beneficiary or to the general public, the home infusion therapy accrediting organization must provide CMS with written notice of the deficiency and any adverse action implemented by the accrediting organization.
( e ) Within 10 calendar days after CMS' notice to a CMS-approved home infusion therapy accrediting organization that CMS intends to withdraw approval of the home infusion therapy accrediting organization, the home infusion therapy accrediting organization must provide written notice of the withdrawal to all of the home infusion therapy accrediting organization's accredited suppliers.
§ 447.271 Upper limits based on customary charges. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the agency may not pay a provider more for inpatient hospital services under Medicaid than the provider's customary charges to the general public for the services.
( b ) The agency may pay a public provider that provides services free or at a nominal charge at the same rate that would be used if the provider charges were equal to or greater than its costs.
[75 FR 73975, Nov. 30, 2010]
#### § 420.200 Purpose.

This subpart implements sections 1124, 1124A, 1126, and 1861(v)(1)(i) of the Social Security Act. It sets forth requirements for providers, Part B suppliers, intermediaries, and carriers to disclose ownership and control information and the identities of managing employees. It also sets forth requirements for disclosure of information about a provider's or Part B supplier's owners, those with a controlling interest, or managing employees convicted of criminal offenses against Medicare, Medicaid, or the title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) and title XX (Social Services) programs.

[57 FR 27306, June 18, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995]
§ 493.1425 Standard; Testing personnel responsibilities. The testing personnel are responsible for specimen processing, test performance, and for reporting test results. ( a ) Each individual performs only those moderate complexity tests that are authorized by the laboratory director and require a degree of skill commensurate with the individual's education, training or experience, and technical abilities.
( b ) Each individual performing moderate complexity testing must— ( 1 ) Follow the laboratory's procedures for specimen handling and processing, test analyses, reporting and maintaining records of patient test results;
( 2 ) Maintain records that demonstrate that proficiency testing samples are tested in the same manner as patient samples;
( 3 ) Adhere to the laboratory's quality control policies, document all quality control activities, instrument and procedural calibrations and maintenance performed;
( 4 ) Follow the laboratory's established corrective action policies and procedures whenever test systems are not within the laboratory's established acceptable levels of performance;
( 5 ) Be capable of identifying problems that may adversely affect test performance or reporting of test results and either must correct the problems or immediately notify the technical consultant, clinical consultant or director; and
( 6 ) Document all corrective actions taken when test systems deviate from the laboratory's established performance specifications.
HomePeople...Jennifer Hall Godfrey

# 				Jennifer Hall Godfrey			

															Senior Official for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs												

				January 20, 2021 -									April 1, 2022							

**Jennifer Hall Godfrey's term ended on April 1, 2022.**

Tags

State Department OfficialUnder Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Imposition of Further Sanctions in Connection with Nord Stream 2

# 									Imposition of Further Sanctions in Connection with Nord Stream 2							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 22, 2021

The Department of State has submitted a report to Congress pursuant to the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019 (PEESA), as amended.  The report lists two vessels and one Russia-linked entity, Transadria Ltd., involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.  Transadria Ltd. will be sanctioned under PEESA, and its vessel, the Marlin, will be identified as blocked property.

Today’s report is in line with the United States’ continuing opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the U.S. Government’s continued compliance with PEESA.  With today’s action, the Administration has now sanctioned 8 persons and identified 17 of their vessels as blocked property pursuant to PEESA in connection with Nord Stream 2.

Even as the Administration continues to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, including via our sanctions, we continue to work with Germany and other allies and partners to reduce the risks posed by the pipeline to Ukraine and frontline NATO and EU countries and to push back against harmful Russian activities, including in the energy sphere.

Tags

Bureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsEnergyOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaSanctionsThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DANIEL SILVA

*Christopher P. DeMarco,*in support of the petition.

*Robert J. Scheinblum,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 24, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 918 (AC 15385), is denied.

MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT C. LLOYD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-96-9-A, CA-98-523-R)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert C. Lloyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 9, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 10, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lloyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lloyd, Nos. CR96-9-A; CA-98-523-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 10, 1998).* 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.

DISMISSED
#### Samuel V. Constant, as Assignee, etc., Appellant, *v.*Gustave E. Schloss et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Special Term denying the plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars of the defendants’ counterclaim.

L. A. Gould, for appellant.

Oppenheim & Severance, for respondents.

O’Dwyeb, J.

We are of the opinion that at Special Term plaintiff made a case entitling him to a portion of the particulars demanded, and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the motion granted, without costs, as prayed for in the notice of motion, with the exception that the defendants need not furnish any particulars as to the respect in which the shellac was of an inferior quality, and not strictly pure and first-class.

Olcott, J., concurs.

Order reversed, with costs, and motion granted, without costs.
NEW EBRD PROGRAM SUPPORTS TRADE

----

**May 1999**
by Philip H. de Leon 
Since the August 1998 Russian banking crisis, trade transactions have been hampered by twointerrelated factors: a lack of hard currency on the part of Russian banks and an unwillingness onthe part of U.S. banks to confirm letters of credit originating from the NIS. The collapse of theGKO market and subsequent decisions on the part of the Central Bank of Russia to (1) not investmore hard currency into the banking system, (2) repudiate outstanding trade credit, and (3) issuea 90-day debt moratorium which was interpreted by some Russian private banks as tacitpermission to default on foreign debt all resulted in the Russian banking system becoming avirtual pariah in the international trade finance community. 
The most common method of payment for export transactions is the letter of credit (L/C). AnL/C is a document issued by a bank on behalf of a buyer, whereby the bank commits itself tohonorpayments to the seller. This normally valuable and extremely common payment method becomesless available as the Russian banking system  is facing a severe crisis and a loss of credibility. Asa result, U.S. banks now are unwilling to accept L/Cs and other forms of trade credit orguarantees issued by Russian and NIS banks. Unfortunately, the other countries of the NIS haveinherited the reputation of their neighbor, Russia. The crisis has essentially left one option opento U.S. exporters shipping to the NIS asking for cash in advance.    
**The EBRD Program**
§ 440.350 Employer-sponsored insurance health plans. ( a ) A State may provide benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage by obtaining employer sponsored health plans (either alone or with additional services covered separately under Medicaid) for individuals with access to private health insurance.
( b ) The State must assure that employer sponsored plans meet the requirements of benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage, including the economy and efficiency requirements at § 440.370.
( c ) A State may provide benchmark or benchmark-equivalent coverage through a combination of employer sponsored health plans and additional benefit coverage provided by the State that wraps around the employer sponsored health plan which, in the aggregate, results in benchmark or benchmark-equivalent level of coverage for those individuals.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...United States-Iceland Economic Partnership Dialogue

# 									United States-Iceland Economic Partnership Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 11, 2024

The United States and Iceland convened the fifth Economic Partnership Dialogue today in Washington, DC, led by Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Amy Holman and Icelandic Director General for External Trade and Economic Affairs Ragnar Kristjánsson. Additional participants included U.S. Ambassador to Iceland Carrin F. Patman and representatives from the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Bureau of Energy Resources, and Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Department of the Treasury also attended.

The participants welcomed the dialogue as an opportunity to deepen economic cooperation, address bilateral trade issues, and strengthen the already robust U.S.-Iceland economic and trade partnership. The principals also discussed the need to deepen joint work on supply chain resilience, investment security, and protection of critical infrastructure. The two sides agreed to continue collaboration on carbon management, hydrogen, and geothermal energy through the U.S.-Iceland Energy and Climate Partnership.

The United States and Iceland committed to continue building upon their existing strong economic ties, deep-rooted cultural and historic relationships, common values of democracy and human rights, and mutual bilateral cooperation.

Tags

Bureau of Consular AffairsBureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDemocracyEconomic AffairsHuman RightsIcelandOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 22, 2014

jam

Order 

Clerk

April 22, 2014

148994 (22)

DAVID A. CHERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 148994

COA: 319071

RICHARD M. RIGGS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $17.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$358.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.