alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0979.html[7/21/2015 7:10:57 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-5yko

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0979

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Richard Isaacson

Address:

1802 Z. Avenue

La Grande, OR, 97850

Email: maggiemm1@frontier.com

Phone: 541-963-9735

General Comment

You stupid, ignorant !!! You are now treading where you should not tread. If you want citizen unrest,

 just keep going 

in the direction you're now heading. I've worked more than 43 years to arrive at my retirement. 43 years of

 careful planning.

43 years of sacrifice so that I could retire. 43 years of NOT doing things that I'd liked to have done so that I could

 properly retire. 

43 years of NOT HAVING THE GOVERNMENT LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER. I'm plenty smart

 enough to govern 

myself. You, on the other hand have proven that you are not good with my money, nor with the "governments"

 money. 

You've wasted and you've wasted and you've wasted.

Leave my money the alone!!

Sincerely,

R.N. Isaacson

1802 Z. Avenue

La Grande, Oregon

97850
H. Res. 155

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 7, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast

Guard for fiscal year 2002. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. No

amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma

amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so

printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to

be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read.
2

•HRES 155 EH

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 130, 147, 149, and 150 are

laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
exv10w1



 







Exhibit 10.1




McAfee, Inc.

Chief Executive Officer Annual Compensation for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2006




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Expected Annual Salary ($)*	 	Maximum Potential Bonus ($)
	George Samenuk
	 	 	900,000	 	 	 	1,350,000	 





* In addition Mr. Samenuk will be entitled to additional forms of compensation, such as company
paid insurance premiums. Also, consistent with past practice, George Samenuk will also be entitled
to personal use of a corporate aircraft in which the Registrant owns a fractional interest.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-92063,
333-98323, 333-98325, 333-120561, and 333-161376 on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 15, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Communications Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.

|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte
 & Touche LLP
|                          
|March 15,
 2011           
|Minneapolis,
 Minnesota   

56

---
exv4w7



 






Exhibit 4.7




Bonus Schedule Board Members 2005

(“Tantiemeregelung”)









Bonus Schedule 2005




 





12 monthly base salaries




Bonus Schedule



On achievement of target:




	 	 	 	 	 
	> 98%

	 	Bonus equal to
	 	12 monthly salaries
	> 96%

	 	 	 	11 
	> 94%

	 	 	 	10 
	> 92%

	 	 	 	9 
	> 90%

	 	 	 	8 
	> 88%

	 	 	 	7 
	> 86%

	 	 	 	6 
	> 84%

	 	 	 	5 
	> 82%

	 	 	 	4 
	> 80%

	 	 	 	3 
	> 78%

	 	 	 	2 
	> 76%

	 	Bonus equal to
	 	1 monthly salary






 





Performance in Excess of Target:



Each Executive Board member receives a portion of the total excess that exceeds the agreed value of
€ 2,086 billion. The portion of the total excess from which the individual portion of each
Executive Board member derives is 3 % for all Executive Board members together. An individual
Executive Board member’s portion corresponds to the individual portion of his base salary as a
percentage of the total base salaries of all Executive Board members.






The target for 2005 is as follows:



The “operating income of the SAP Group excluding costs for share-based compensation programs
and acquisition-related expenditures” (pro forma operating income) with a (100%) target value of €
2,086 billion will form the basis for the 2005 bonus schedule. For the purposes of determining the
calculation base for bonuses, a rise in ACTUAL value will be linked with software revenue growth:
Software revenue growth of up to +10% will result in an increase of € 10 million for each 1%, and
thereafter in an increase of € 20 million for each 1%.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 325](/current/title-49/part-325?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 325 appear at [66 FR 49869](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-49869), Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 325.7 Allowable noise levels.

Motor vehicle noise emissions, when measured according to the rules of this part, shall not exceed the values specified in Table 1.

Table 1—Maximum Permissible Sound Level Readings (Decibel (A))1 2

| | Highway operation test | | | | Stationary tests | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Soft site | | Hard Site | | Soft site | Hard site |
| 35 mi/h or less | Above 35 mi/h | 35 mi/h or less | Above 35 mi/h |
| If the distance between the microphone location point and the microphone target point is— | | | | | | |
| 31 ft (9.5m) or more but less than 35 ft (10.7m) | 87 | 91 | 89 | 93 | 89 | 91 |
| 35 ft (10.7m) or more but less than 39 ft (11.9m) | 86 | 90 | 88 | 92 | 88 | 90 |
| 39 ft (11.9m) or more but less than 43 ft (13.1m) | 85 | 89 | 87 | 91 | 87 | 89 |
| 43 ft (13.1m) or more but less than 48 ft (14.6m) | 84 | 88 | 86 | 90 | 86 | 88 |
| 48 ft (14.6m) or more but less than 58 ft (17.1m) | 83 | 87 | 85 | 89 | 85 | 87 |
| 58 ft (17.1m) or more but less than 70 ft (21.3m) | 82 | 86 | 84 | 88 | 84 | 86 |
| 70 ft (21.3m) or more but less than 83 ft (25.3m) | 81 | 85 | 83 | 87 | 83 | 85 |
| | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 The speeds shown refer to measurements taken at sites having speed limits as indicated. These speed limits do not necessarily have to be posted. | | | | | | |
| 2 This table is based on motor carrier noise emission requirements specified in [40 CFR 202.20](/on/2024-09-24/title-40/section-202.20) and [40 CFR 202.21](/on/2024-09-24/title-40/section-202.21). | | | | | | |

[[40 FR 42437](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-42437), Sept. 12, 1975, as amended at [54 FR 50385](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/54-FR-50385), Dec. 6, 1989]
Exhibit 2


                        FORM OF SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin L. Cornwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Utah Medical
Products, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
         procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
         operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003


       /s/ Kevin L. Cornwell
---------------------------------
Kevin L. Cornwell
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with this Annual Report of Hutech21
Co., Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: 	April 15, 2011	/s/ Taehoan Park

Taehoan Park

Chief Executive
Officer,

Chief Financial
Officer
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1248.html[7/22/2015 9:14:25 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-ble2

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1248

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dave mundell

General Comment

I can handle and make my own decisions about my retirement investments. It is my hard work that created my

 401k. Why would I want a government that is fiscally out of control deciding the fate of my hard earned

 retirement money. Keep the government out of our retirement decisions.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0984.html[7/21/2015 7:20:05 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-t2jd

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0984

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I work very hard for my money and paid taxes on it already so keep your hands off of it.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 2, 2008 *

Decided October 3, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 1063

DAMON A. MYERS,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v.

MELISSA ANN GAGEN,

Defendant

‐ Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:07

‐ cv

‐ 1589

‐ JDT

‐ TAB

John Daniel Tinder,

Judge

.



### O R D E R

Damon Myers is an Indiana inmate who was convicted of child molesting.

Claiming that Melissa Gagen, the prosecutor who tried the case against him, committed

misconduct amounting to a constitutional violation, Myers brought a civil

‐ rights complaint

against her under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 1063 Page 2

§ 1915A, and dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The

district court read the complaint to allege that Gagen represented Myers, but the court’s

confusion is understandable. In his complaint Myers identifies Gagen only as an “attorney

at law” and refers to her as “Attorney Gagen.” The court dismissed based on the rule that a

defense lawyer, even if paid by the state, does not act under color of state law unless she

conspires with state officials to violate the rights of another. See Tower v. Glover

, 467 U.S.

914, 923 (1984) ; Polk County v. Dodson

, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

On appeal Myers has clarified that Gagen’s role was that of prosecutor and not

defense counsel, but the clarification does not help his cause. Although prosecutors act

under color of state law, they are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 challenging

conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Imbler v. Pachtman

, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Redwood v. Dobson

, 476 F.3d 462, 466 (7th

Cir. 2007). Because Myers’s suit challenges Gagen’s conduct at trial—undoubtedly part of

the judicial phase of the criminal process—the dismissal of Myers’s suit is

AFFIRMED.
#### Julian Przeczewski, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Bardsley et al., Appellants.

Reported below, 138 App. Div. 907.

(Submitted May 29, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 23, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants, his employers.

The motion was made upon the ground that the affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous and the exceptions frivolous.

*Julius H. Cohn*for motion.

*Herbert Noble*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 384

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 384 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 384.232 Required timing of record checks.

The State shall perform the record checks prescribed in §§ 384.205, 384.206, and 384.220, no earlier than 10 days prior to issuance for licenses issued before October 1, 1995. For licenses issued after September 30, 1995, the State shall perform the record checks no earlier than 24 hours prior to issuance if the license is issued to a driver who does not currently possess a valid CDL from the same State and no earlier than 10 days prior to issuance for all other drivers.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6302

TERRY LEE THORNE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICK JACKSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02047-D) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry Lee Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Terry Lee Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, grant Thorne’s motion to amend his brief, and dismiss the appeal. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 103

  Referring the bill (H.R. 1258), entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
 Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and 
  Adele E. Conrad'', to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

 Mr. Cox submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Referring the bill (H.R. 1258), entitled ``A bill for the relief of 
 Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and 
  Adele E. Conrad'', to the chief judge of the United States Court of 
                  Federal Claims for a report thereon.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. REFERRAL.

    Pursuant to section 1492 of title 28, United States Code, the bill 
(H.R. 1258), entitled ``A bill for the relief of Sarabeth M. Davis, 
Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad'', 
now pending in the House of Representatives, is referred to the chief 
judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

SEC. 2. PROCEEDINGS AND REPORT.

    Upon receipt of the bill, the chief judge shall--
            (1) proceed under section 2509 of title 28, United States 
        Code; and
            (2) report back to the House of Representatives, at the 
        earliest practicable date, providing--
                    (A) findings of fact and conclusions of law that 
                are sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature, 
                extent, and character of the claim for the compensation 
                referred to in the bill as a legal or equitable claim 
                against the United States; and
                    (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably due 
                from the United States to the claimants.
                                 <all>
```
§ 374.319 Relief from provisions. ( a ) *Petitions.* Where compliance with any rule would impose an undue burden on a carrier, it may petition the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration either to treat it as though it were conducting a commuter service or to waive the rule. The request for relief must be justified by appropriate verified statements.
( b ) *Notice to the public.* The carrier shall display conspicuously, for at least 30 days, in each facility and on each bus affected, a notice of the filing of any petition. The notice shall contain the carrier's name and address, a concise description of and reasons for the relief sought, and a statement that any interested person may file written comments with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (with one copy mailed to the carrier) on or before a specific date that is at least 30 days later than the date the notice is posted.
[55 FR 11199, Mar. 27, 1990. Redesignated at 61 FR 54709, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 15423, Apr. 1, 1997]