alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit1019.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.19

    
 

    NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK
APPRECIATION RIGHT (SAR) AWARD

    


    
      	
              Name
      of Employee:

            	
              [Name]

            


    

    


    
      	
              Name
      of Plan:

            	
              2006
      AI Incentive Plan

            


    

    


    
      	
              Number
      of SAR’s:

            	
              xxx,xxx

            


    

    


    
      	
              Grant
      Price Per SAR:

            	 


    

    


    
      	
              Date
      of SAR Grant:

            	
              [Grant
  Date]

            


    

    


    
      	
              Vesting
      Schedule:

            	
              50%
      on 1st
      Anniversary of Grant Date

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              Additional
      25% on 2nd
      Anniversary of Grant Date

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              Remaining
      25% on 3rd
      Anniversary of Grant Date

            


    

    


    
      	
              Expiration
      Date:

            	
              [Ten years & 30 days after
      Grant Date]

            


    

    


    ASHLAND
INC ("Ashland") hereby confirms the grant of a Stock Appreciation Right (“SAR”)
award (“Award”) to the above-named Employee ("Employee"). This Award entitles
Employee to receive Ashland stock equal to the excess of the fair market value
of Ashland Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (“Common Stock”), as
determined by the closing price of the Common Stock as reported on the Composite
Tape of the New York Stock Exchange, on the date the SAR is exercised over the
grant price of the Common Stock, with an aggregate value equal to the excess of
the fair market value of one share of Common Stock over the exercise price
specified in such SAR multiplied by the number of SARs of Common Stock covered
by such SAR or portion thereof which is so surrendered.

    


    This
Award is granted under, and is subject to, all the terms and conditions of the
Plan. Copies of the Plan and related Prospectus are available for your review on
FirstHand, Ashland’s
intranet site.

    


    This
grant of Stock Appreciation Rights is subject to your on-line acceptance of the
terms and conditions of this Agreement through the Fidelity
website.

     

    


    ASHLAND
INC.

     

     

     

    By:
_________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      19,776,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,283,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                   270,000
<INVENTORY>                                 18,520,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,373,181
<PP&E>                                      16,816,795
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,914,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,275,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,830,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,046,141
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,601,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,275,895
<SALES>                                    132,716,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           133,307,201
<CGS>                                       80,737,193
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,749,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,558,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,545,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,012,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,012,815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.75
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16

- 0228 Filed December 21, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D., T.D., Minor child, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Russe l l G. Keast (adjudicatory hearing), District Associate Judge , and Susan F. Flaherty (dispositional hearing), Associate Juvenile Judge

.

A child appeals the district court’s a djudication and disposition of delinquency. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART , AND REMANDED.

Peter W. Stiefel of Stiefel Law Firm , Victor, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.2

VOGEL, Presiding Judge. T.D. appeals following the district court’s dispositional order adjudicating him delinquent and imposing formal probation

. 1 The district court determined he

commit t ed sexual abuse in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code s ection 709.4(1)(a) (2015) ; assault with the intent to commit sexual abuse, in violation of

section 709.11(3) ; and simple assault, in violation of sections 708.1 and 708. 2 ( 6 ). T.D. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion he committed the crimes in question and the court’s failure to grant him a consent

decree. We a ffirm the adjudication and disposition under Iowa Court R ule

21.26 (1) (a), (b) , and (d) but remand for the entry of a corrected dispositional

order

. The district court heard evidence T.D. committed certain acts upon three separate victims. It then weigh ed the evidence and made credibility findings before entering its lengthy and detailed ruling. We review delinquency proceedings de novo, giving weight to the fact findings of the district court, especially as to the credibility of the witnesses, but we a re not bound by those findings. In re A.K

., 825 N.W.2d 46, 49 (Iowa 2013). Upon our de novo review, we agree with the district court ’s reasoning and conclusions

. We further find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its disposition al

decision declining T.D.’s request for a consent decree. See In re J.J.A. , 580 N.W.2d 731, 737 (Iowa 1998) (“ Our review of a juvenile court ’ s decision to enter

1 After the adjudicatory hearing, the district court found the State had proven T.D. had committed the above referenced acts but withheld the entry of adjudication “pending dispositional hearing.”3

a consent decree is de novo, but only to the extent of examining all the evidence

to determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion.” )

. However, we vacate that portion of the dispositional order that incorrectly cited Iowa Code section 708.2(2) , assault causing bodily injury , because this

does not comport with the evidentiary finding s of the co urt. The court found T.D.

had commit t ed simple assault under Iowa Code section s 708.1 and 708.2(6)

. The State concedes this error. We therefore remand this matter for the entry of a corrected dispositional order. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART , AND REMANDED.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1672 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### DocumenjNumber: 

# i ) Il-D-3 6 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:01 AM Sheet 101 of 132

# FIL E COP

Y Chevro n P. 2 

### A981 3 

# S Chevro n

Ma y 27 , 199 8

Mr . Bruc e Jorda

n Director , Emissio n Standard s Divisio n Offic e of Air Qualit y Plannin g & Standard s U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Reques tfo r Tim e Extension : Organi c Liquid s Distributio n (OLD ) MAC T Surve y Dea r Mr . Jordan : Chevro n Corporatio n Publi c Affair s 57 5 Marke t Stree t Sa n Francisco , C

A 94105-285 6 P . Mart y Bitte r Manage r Federa l Relation s Phon e 41 5 89 4 249 0 Fa x41 5 89 4 846 8

Pe r your attache d letter , w e hav e receive d your surve y reques t fo r Chevro n informatio n o n source s and quantitie s o

f hazardou s air

pollutant (HAP) emission s an

d contro l techniques . Chevro n i s a

n internationa

l energ y an

d chemical s compan

y wit h operation s throughout

th e Unite d State s and aroun d th e world . Afte r havin g thoroughly reviewe d th e survey reques t wit h variou s Chevro n operatin g compan y personnel , w e hav e anumbe r o f question s regardin g th e applicabilit

y to variou s facilitie s and the specifi c informatio n whic h th e EPA woul d lik

e to collect . W e pla n to participate i

n th e upcomin g workshop nex t wee k to hopefull

y addres s anumber

o f thos e question s an d issues . However , onc e w e resolv e th e uncertaintie s w e have , w e stil l nee d to hav e adequat

e time fo r affecte d facilitie s withi n Chevron t o complet e th e form s and answe

r an y follow-u p question s the

y will likely have . We envisio n th e surve y reques t wil l requir

e additiona

l time tha n yo u allotte d (b

y July 8,1998 ) t

o complet e th e surve

y properly . W e therefor

e woul d lik

e t o reques t a60-da y extensio n o

f time t o ensur e w e provide yo

u th e bes t informatio n possible . Fro matimin g standpoint , th e peopl e wh o wil l collec t thi s informatio n i

n man y o f ou r facilitie s ar

e currently engaged i

n time-sensitiv e MAC

T implementatio n a s well a s SAR A reportin g requirements . Mr . Hug h Dicke y (415-894-6553 ) an

d Mr . Bo b Walke

r (415

- 894-7710 ) o

f ou r Federa l Relation s Departmen

t will follow-u

p wit h yo u and you r staf f t o discus s thi s reques t

further . Than k yo u fo r consideratio n o

f thi s request . Sincerely , 

### ^t%-^-~
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:50 AM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Dry‐Type LCC and NIA Results Update

Dear Committee Members,

On review, formatting inconsistencies were found in MVDT results presentation, a

revised presentation is attached. Also attached is the ZDMH, H0, SA1 materials

exclusion sensitivity.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
#### § 37.27 What are the obligations of small recipients regarding Equal Opportunity Officers?

Although small recipients do not need to designate Equal Opportunity Officers who have the full range of responsibilities listed above, they must designate an individual who will be responsible for developing and publishing of complaint procedures, and the processing of complaints, as explained in §§ 37.76 through 37.79.
#### § 91.1061 Augmented flight crews.

(a) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time as a member of an augmented crew if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed—

(1) 500 hours in any calendar quarter;

(2) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters;

(3) 1,400 hours in any calendar year.

(b) No program manager may assign any pilot to an augmented crew, unless the program manager ensures:

(1) Adequate sleeping facilities are installed on the aircraft for the pilots.

(2) No more than 8 hours of flight deck duty is accrued in any 24 consecutive hours.

(3) For a three-pilot crew, the crew must consist of at least the following:

(i) A pilot in command (PIC) who meets the applicable flight crewmember requirements of this subpart and § 61.57 of this chapter.

(ii) A PIC qualified pilot who meets the applicable flight crewmember requirements of this subpart and § 61.57(c) and (d) of this chapter.

(iii) A second in command (SIC) who meets the SIC qualifications of this subpart. For flight under IFR, that person must also meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter.

(4) For a four-pilot crew, at least three pilots who meet the conditions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, plus a fourth pilot who meets the SIC qualifications of this subpart. For flight under IFR, that person must also meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61 of this chapter.

(c) No program manager may assign any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, if that crewmember's flight time or duty period will exceed, or rest time will be less than—

| | 3-Pilot crew | 4-Pilot crew |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) Minimum Rest Immediately Before Duty | 10 Hours | 10 Hours |
| (2) Duty Period | Up to 16 Hours | Up to 18 Hours |
| (3) Flight Time | Up to 12 Hours | Up to 16 Hours |
| (4) Minimum After Duty Rest | 12 Hours | 18 Hours |
| (5) Minimum After Duty Rest Period for Multi-Time Zone Flights | 18 hours | 24 hours |
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 listed
below of Coyote Network Systems, Inc., formerly The Diana Corporation, of our
report dated September 22, 1997, except as to the last paragraph of Note 8,
which is as of November 4, 1998, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of The Diana Corporation, which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2).


1.       Registration Statement on Form S-3
         (Registration No. 33-88392)

2.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 33-67188)

3.       Registration Statement on Form S-3
         (Registration No. 333-1055)

4.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63011)

5.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63013)

6.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63017)

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 17, 1999
#### In the Matter of Shawn P. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused. Wayne County Department of Social *908Services, Respondent; Bruce O., Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 901]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of Family Court determining, following a hearing, that respondent had sexually abused his girlfriend’s two children. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the findings of abuse are supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Philip M.,*82 NY2d 238, 243-244; *Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117). The children’s out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the validation testimony of petitioner’s expert witness *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [vi]; *Matter of Jaclyn P.,*86 NY2d 875, 877-878, *cert denied sub nom. Papa v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs.,*516 US 1093; *Matter of Nicole V., supra,*at 121; *Matter of Camron R.*[appeal No. 1], 251 AD2d 1073; *Matter of Jennifer M.,*229 AD2d 940). The expert testified that the children became anxious, fearful and angry when giving details of the sexual abuse and displayed behavior consistent with children who had been sexually abused. In addition, there was nonhearsay testimony that the children engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. The fact that the children at times recanted the allegations of abuse does not render their initial statements incredible as a matter of law *(see, Matter of Lakeesha R.,*229 AD2d 965), particularly in view of the evidence that the children recanted based upon the advice of their mother and their fear of respondent.

The court properly admitted in evidence a Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment report of child abuse and maltreatment concerning respondent *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [v]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court did not rely on that report in finding that the children were abused.

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the attorney for the children’s grandmother to attend the hearing *(see generally,*Family Ct Act § 1043; 22 NYCRR 205.4; *Matter of Katherine B.,*189 AD2d 443, 450). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Abuse.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
128 STAT. 1804 PUBLIC LAW 113–147—AUG. 8, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 606 (S. 233): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–147 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 815 County 

Road 23 in Tyrone, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Christopher Scott Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST CHRISTOPHER SCOTT POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 815 County Road 23 in Tyrone, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Christopher Scott Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Christopher Scott Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 8, 2014. 

Aug. 8, 2014 

[H.R. 606] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 872 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 872

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax 
            provisions and income tax credit for biodiesel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2007

  Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Coleman) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax 
            provisions and income tax credit for biodiesel.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX PROVISIONS AND INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR 
              BIODIESEL.

    (a) In General.--Sections 40A(g), 6426(c)(6), and 6427(e)(5)(B) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``2008'' 
and inserting ``2017''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### SANCHEZ v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 85-203 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

February 10, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before NADLER, SHAPIRO, ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal JOHN SANCHEZ, Appellant, is seeking review of the *176Court’s denial of motions for discharge pursuant to RCrP 3.191 and for the Court’s suspension of the defendant’s driving privilege for five years.

The Motion for Discharge was denied because the Court found the unavailability of the victim warranted extension of the speedy trial period. When the motion was heard, the victim was in a coma, a consequence of the accident. No one knew at the time how much information the witness might have. The trial judge was well within his sound discretion to extend the time for speedy trial. *Routly v. State,*440 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1983); *Dedmon v. State,*400 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

However the trial court acted outside of its jurisdiction by suspending the defendant’s driver’s license for five years.

The trial court’s discretion is limited by the times provided for suspensions in F.S. § 322.25(2)(1983). *Moreland v. State,*442 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Shapiro, J. concurs.

I agree with the decision reached by my colleagues in this matter. I do not recede from my position in *Lilly v. State,*Case No. 85-240-AC, Circ. Ct. Dade County, filed January 20, 1987, wherein this COurt held that a trial court, as a condition of probation, can suspend a license for a longer period than the Department and in excess of that provided for in the statute. However, since the license suspension in this case was not a condition of probation, it is limited to the time constraints set forth in the applicable statute.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHN AUSTIN EDWARDS, a/k/a Shakim, a/k/a Doquan Cooper, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-225-2) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Austin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Austin Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and for reconsideration. 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. Edwards , Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-225-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 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