alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                         768
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    41,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,848
<PP&E>                                         121,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          472,413
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    200,233
<COMMON>                                       360,410
<OTHER-SE>                                     (842,702)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,354
<SALES>                                        22,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,072
<CGS>                                          14,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               55,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (39,562)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (39,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (39,562)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,562)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)



</TABLE>
§ 2570.137 Summary decision. For 502(c)(7) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.41 of this title. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material fact.* ( 1 ) Where no issue of a material fact is found to have been raised, the administrative law judge may issue a decision which, in the absence of an appeal pursuant to §§ 2570.139 through 2570.141 of this subpart, shall become a final order.
( 2 ) A decision made under paragraph (a) of this section shall include a statement of: ( i ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons therefor, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) Any terms and conditions of the rule or order.
( 3 ) A copy of any decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issues of fact.* Where a genuine question of a material fact is raised, the administrative law judge shall, and in any other case may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing.
A NDREW M. C uoMo G ovERNOfl

Ms. Judith A

. Enck Regional Administrator STA TE o r N ew Y o RK D E PARTMENT OF E NV IRONMENTAL CO NSE RV ATI ON A LBANY, N Ew Y oRK 12233-1010 

## JUL
- 

# 2 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 290 Broadway 26 1h Floor New York, NY 10007- I8 6

# Dear**~** JoF MMnrNs C oMMISSIONER

l am writing to y regarding your letter of May 30, 2012 requesting assistance in resolving technical issues identified by your agency in Nevv York's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)

. On June 18 , 2012, the New York State Depa1tment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) submitted coiTimcnts to both the federal docket (No

. EPA-R02-0AR-20 12-0296) and Mr. Raymond Wemer concerning the April 17,2012 Federal Register notice

. The DEC's comments provided an update on the efforts that the DEC has made to address EP!\ 's concems relative to the Regional Haze Program. · V.,!e have been working to resolve all outstanding issues raised by your agency regarding New York 's SIP submission in time to avoid the imposition ofa Federal Implementation Plan (PIP) for those portions ofthe program that EPA feels need to be addressed. As a result, I am submitting, for inclusion in New York State' s SIP, the final permits for five ofthe facilities indicated in the April 17, 2012 Federal Register notice for which Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements had not been finalized

. These facilities arc the Bowline Generating Station, Owens Corning Delmar Plant, Oswego Harbor Power, Syracuse Energy Corporation, and Kodak Park Division. The pem1it for the Lehigh Northeast Cement Plant, which had already been issued by the DEC at the time of EPA's proposal, has been updated to include a new S02 limit of 1.50 lb/mmBtu to supplement the fuel sulfur limits that EP !\ proposed as BART. · Pcm1its (or the above-mentioned facilities were finalized on the !allowing elates : Owens Coming Delmar Plant, issued May 18 , 20 12 ; Oswego Harbor Power, issued May 16, 20 12; Syracuse Energy Corporation, issued May 24, 20 12 ; Kodak Park Division, is sued May 25 , 2012 : Bowline, issued June 28 , 20 12; and Lehigh Northeast Cement, issued July 2, 20122. Permits for all other sources (excluding Roseton and Danskammer) have been submitted to EPA in final fonn and match the terms proposed by EPA. We expect the pcm1its to be approved as SlP revisions when EPA issues its final ruling. We look iorward to continued cooperation between our agencies to come to an agreement on any remaining issues that will satisfy the requirements ofthe Regional Haze Program. The enclosed CD contains copies ofthe approved pennits for the facilities discussed in this letter. Please call me at (518) 402-8540 if you have any questions.

Enclosure

cc: R. Werner, EPA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 20-0246

SUBRINA BRENHAM AND 

SUBRINA'S TAX SERVICES

v.

JOSEPH KEMP AND KRR HH 

RETAIL, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

July 3, 2020

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

November 13, 2020

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above 

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown. 

It is further ordered that petitioner, SUBRINA BRENHAM AND SUBRINA'S TAX 

SERVICES, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 13th day of November, 2020.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
EXHIBIT 10.16

 

OpGen, Inc.

 

Non-Employee Director Compensation
 (to be effective following closing of initial public offering)

 

	
Board Member Compensation
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Annual Retainer
    	
 
    	
$
    	
25,000
    	
 
    
	
Annual equity grant (stock options)
    	
 
    	
12,500
    	
 
    
	
Initial equity grant (stock options)
    	
 
    	
30,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Additional Committee Chair   Compensation
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit Committee
    	
 
    	
$
    	
15,000
    	
 
    
	
Compensation Committee
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
Nominating & Corporate Governance *
    	
 
    	
$
    	
7,500
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Additional Committee Member   Compensation
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Audit Committee
    	
 
    	
$
    	
7,000
    	
 
    
	
Compensation Committee
    	
 
    	
$
    	
5,000
    	
 
    
	
Nominating & Corporate Governance *
    	
 
    	
$
    	
3,500
    	
 
    


 




*                                         When formed
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

No. 96-50878

_______________________________

POINETTE GODFREY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CA-0456)

_________________________________________________________________

April 16, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM*:

Poinette Godfrey challenges an adverse summary judgment in her

Title VII action, which arises out of discharge from her employment

as a probationary flight attendant after Southwest had received

negative reports concerning her “attitude, friendliness, and

passenger contact”. 

Godfrey contends that Southwest’s system of confidential

evaluation of probationary flight attendants constitutes disparate
impact discrimination based on race. Godfrey did not raise this

issue in her complaint, however. The first appearance of this

theory was not until after Southwest’s summary judgment motion.

Furthermore, in her “letter brief” in response to Southwest’s reply

brief for summary judgment, Godfrey expressly abandoned her

disparate impact claim. Needless to say, this court may decline to

exercise our discretion to consider issues that were not raised in

the district court. See, e.g., Highlands Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union

Fire Ins. Co., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 903 (1995) (applying, in civil case, plain error

analysis of United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)). 

In any event, concerning this claim, as well as those for

discriminatory treatment and retaliatory discharge claims, and

pursuant to our de novo review, we affirm for essentially the

reasons stated by the district court. Godfrey v. Southwest

Airlines Co., Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (SA-95-CA-0456) (18 October, 1996).

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12744]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 24, 2000.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12744 Filed 5-17-00; 10:54 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Non-Employee Director Compensation as of September 30, 2009



 EXHIBIT 10.36 
 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 (NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR FEES)

 The following sets forth the fees and other payments that directors who are not employees of Franklin Resources, Inc.
(“Franklin”) are entitled to receive as members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”), and the fees and other payments that such non-employee Franklin directors who are also members of the Board of Directors of Fiduciary Trust
Company International (“Fiduciary”) receive from Fiduciary. With respect to service on the Franklin Board, the Franklin Board last approved a change in such compensation structure in December 2005. With respect to service on the Fiduciary
Board, the Fiduciary Board last approved a change in such compensation structure in December 2006 (effective October 1, 2006). 
 Directors
who are not Franklin employees are entitled to receive $17,500 per quarter, plus $3,000 per Board meeting, and an annual stock grant valued at $75,000 (rounded up to the nearest whole share). Non-employee directors who serve on Board committees are
paid $1,500 per committee meeting attended. Additionally, Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee receive $1,250 per quarter and the Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives $2,500 per quarter.
Non-employee directors who are also members of the Board of Directors of Fiduciary receive from Fiduciary an annual board retainer fee of $35,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly), and an annual committee retainer fee of
$5,000 (one-fourth of which is paid quarterly) for service on a Fiduciary board committee.
 In addition, Franklin reimburses directors for
certain expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings as well as other Franklin-related events, including travel, hotel accommodations, meals and other incidental expenses for the director and his or her spouse
accompanying the director in connection with such events. Franklin may also, from time to time, provide directors and their spouses token gifts of nominal value. 
 Franklin also allows directors to defer payment of their directors’ fees, and to treat the deferred amounts as hypothetical investments in Franklin common stock or Franklin Templeton mutual funds, as
applicable. The terms of any such deferred payment arrangements are set forth in separate documentation between Franklin and the particular directors in accordance with the Corporation’s 2006 Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and
restated.
#### In the Matter of Vincent A. Kemp, Petitioner, v Erie County Department of Social Services et al., Respondents.

[697 NYS2d 797]

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the determination after a fair hearing of respondent New York State Department of Social Services, now known as the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), affirming a decision of respondent Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS). Petitioner requested direct vendor payment of his electric utility bill and was originally informed that $18 per month would be restricted from his grant and paid to the utility. The utility informed DSS that a current meter reading was needed to establish the correct amount. Based upon that reading the utility determined that the correct amount was $36 per month, the amount of the monthly budget billing. DSS notified petitioner that it would restrict that amount from his grant, and petitioner requested a fair hearing with respect to that determination. He contended that $18 was the correct amount. The determination of OTDA that the local agency correctly determined that $36 should be withheld is supported by substantial evidence (see, *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181-182). The amount of a social services voucher for domestic utilities is based on the actual cost of the service (see, 18 NYCRR 352.29 [e] [2]; 87 ADM-51). The amount challenged was supported by the most recent meter reading. Petitioner’s reliance on *Matter of Williams v D’Elia*(119 AD2d 678) to support the allegation that an unlawful percentage was deducted is misplaced. That case concerns recoupment of overpayments by the agency. No recoupment is involved here.

At the fair hearing petitioner also attempted to challenge the deductions from his grant for direct vendor payment of gas utility bills since 1986. The finding of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the fair hearing request did not cover that issue was not disputed. Thus, petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that issue *(see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*188 AD2d 1071, *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 834).

*906Petitioner further contends in his brief that the ALJ was biased. That contention is not raised in the CPLR article 78 petition, and thus it is not preserved for our review *(see, Gregory v Town of Cambria,*69 NY2d 655). In any event, we conclude that the contention is without merit. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 32000R2731 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R2731

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2731/2000 of 14 December 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2543/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of export licences for olive oil **

*
Official Journal L 316 , 15/12/2000 P. 0042 - 0042 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2731/2000

of 14 December 2000

amending Regulation (EC) No 2543/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of export licences for olive oil

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2702/1999(2), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) With a view to simplifying the arrangements, Annex III to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000, laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products(3) lays down the maximum quantities of agricultural products for which import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates are not required and need not be produced. For olive oil those quantities are 100 kg both for import and for export.

(2) Article 2(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/95(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 726/98(5), provides that no licence is required for exports of 50 kg or less.

(3) In view of the horizontal measures adopted in Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 concerning the maximum quantities that may be imported or exported by product without a licence, for the sake of simplification and legal safety divergent provisions should not be maintained within each sector and in particular for olive oil.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2543/95 is hereby deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2000.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66.

(2) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 7.

(3) OJ L 152, 24.6.2000, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 260, 31.10.1995, p. 33.

(5) OJ L 100, 1.4.1998, p. 46.
#### Gary Lee TOMPA, Appellant, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 11170.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 4, 1967.

Decided June 8, 1967.

*1023Louis S. Herrink, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Court-assigned counsel), for appellant.

Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Virginia (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., of Virginia, on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a sequel to Tompa v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4 Cir., 331 F.2d 552. It comes up now after a plenary hearing from findings and conclusions that Tom-pa’s representation in defending the criminal charges against him in the state court was not so deficient as to present a constitutional issue. The record lends adequate support for the District Court’s findings and conclusions, and the judgment dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

Affirmed.
exv10w42






EXHIBIT 10.42




Management Incentive Plan (MIP)

Fiscal Year 2010



The Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) applies to designated Executive Officers of the Company and
is designed to link a portion of a participant’s cash compensation to demonstrated performance. A
participant has an opportunity to earn incentive awards based on Company Performance, Unit or Work
Team Performance and Personal Performance results during the fiscal year. This document is the
sole document which governs the administration of MIP awards.



Incentive Awards made pursuant to the MIP are determined and distributed annually following
completion of the Company’s fiscal year. The Committee may elect to issue interim awards in
conjunction with the Company’s mid-year performance review process. Incentive Awards may be
prorated to account for partial Plan Year participation. Incentive awards will generally be
distributed to participants within 90 calendar days following the end of the fiscal year.



Incentive awards under the MIP are determined based upon funding availability for the award pool,
the performance of each Participant’s assigned Business Unit or Work Team and Personal Performance
against established performance goals. In general, annual incentive awards under the MIP target
fifty percent of base salary at the time of determination and cumulative annual awards to any
Participant will not exceed that Participant’s annual base salary received during the relevant Plan
Year.



Company performance is defined as the extent to which the Company attains established Incentive
Plan Funding Goals tied to the achievement of both revenue and net income targets as established by
the Committee at the beginning of the fiscal year. Business unit or work team performance is
defined as the extent to which a participant’s assigned business unit or work team achieves
targeted results while adhering to budgeted resources.



All Incentive Awards under the MIP are in the form of cash payments, less applicable tax
withholding, as determined by the Committee.



Financial results associated with business acquisitions, divestitures, share repurchase activity,
changes in the economy or markets served by the Company which substantially impact results attained
during the Plan Year may be excluded from the results used to calculate Incentive Awards. The
Committee will determine, in its sole discretion, whether such events have occurred and the extent
to which, if at all, goals should be adjusted.



The MIP is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”).
The Committee has the authority to interpret and administer all provisions and to make any rules
and regulations or take any action it deems necessary including amendments or revocation. All
awards issued under the MIP are at the sole discretion of the Committee.