alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Lana Melton [mailto:muffinmelton@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:20 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

I have worked hard and will not give up the controll of my 401K (I've worked 20 years to get what 

I have in my retirement and that is worth just as much to keep). The government is corrupt and 

takes advantage of the stupid. There is a scheme called social security out there that I am forced 

to particiapate in that was to do just what this suggestion is supposed to do. As of now I feel a 

whole lot more comfortable relying on my work and decissions than the government promises 

and siezures.

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
**EXHIBIT 10.34**

 

**2006 Bonus Plan**

 

**Purpose:**

 

The terms of the 2006 Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) havebeen established to reward the executives and other senior managers of RigelPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for assisting the Company in achievingits operational goals through exemplary performance. The Plan was adopted toattract, motivate and retain the Company’s executive officers and other seniorlevel employees. The Plan provides for the payment of cash bonuses to executiveofficers and other senior level employees of the Company, based on theperformance of both the Company and the individual during 2006.

 

**Determination of 2006 Cash Bonuses:**

 

Under the Plan, bonusesmay range from 0% to a maximum of 33% of the recipient’s 2006 base salary. Thepercentage of base salary used to determine bonus amounts varies by the levelof employee. The target bonuses for recipients will be based on the achievementof objective performance goals relating to the Company’s clinical developmentof current product candidates, expansion of the pipeline of new productcandidates and cash position by the end of 2006. The Board of Directors or theCompensation Committee may revise any of the performance goals or target bonusamounts at any time. Payment of cash bonuses is subject to the approval anddiscretion of the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee at thebeginning of 2007.

 

----
§ 800.3 Functions. ( a ) The primary function of the Board is to promote safety in transportation. The Board is responsible for the investigation, determination of facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause or causes of: ( 1 ) All accidents involving civil aircraft, and certain public aircraft;
( 2 ) Highway accidents, including railroad grade-crossing accidents, the investigation of which is selected in cooperation with the States;
( 3 ) Railroad accidents in which there is a fatality, substantial property damage, or which involve a passenger train;
( 4 ) Pipeline accidents in which there is a fatality, significant injury to the environment, or substantial property damage; and
( 5 ) Major marine casualties and marine accidents involving a public and a non-public vessel or involving Coast Guard functions.
( b ) The Board makes transportation safety recommendations to federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations to reduce the likelihood of transportation accidents. It initiates and conducts safety studies and special investigations on matters pertaining to safety in transportation, assesses techniques and methods of accident investigation, evaluates the effectiveness of transportation safety consciousness and efficacy of other Government agencies, and evaluates the adequacy of safeguards and procedures concerning the transportation of hazardous materials.
( c ) Upon application of affected parties, the Board reviews in quasijudicial proceedings, conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.,* denials by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration of applications for airman certificates and orders of the Administrator modifying, amending, suspending, or revoking certificates or imposing civil penalties. The Board also reviews on appeal the decisions of the head of the agency in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating, on appeals from orders of administrative law judges suspending, revoking, or denying seamen licenses, certificates, or documents.
( d ) The Board, as provided in part 801 of this chapter, issues reports and orders pursuant to its duties to determine the cause or probable cause or causes of transportation accidents and to report the facts, conditions and circumstances relating to such accidents; issues opinions and/or orders in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 1133 after reviewing on appeal the imposition of a civil penalty or the suspension, amendment, modification, revocation, or denial of a certificate or license issued by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (who acts through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration) or by the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard; and issues and makes available to the public safety recommendations, safety studies, and reports of special investigations.
[81 FR 75730, Nov. 1, 2016]
Senior Officer Agreement
 

 

 

                                                                                         April 6, 2000
**PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL**
Mr. Jack C. Chambers
Exhibit 10.23


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED

PATHMARK STORES, INC.

2000 EMPLOYEE EQUITY PLAN


 


This Amendment No. 2 to the
Amended and Restated Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000 Employee Equity Plan (the
“Amendment”) was adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors (the “Board of Directors”) of Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the “Company”)
on March 25, 2004.


 


The Amended and Restated
Pathmark Stores, Inc. 2000 Employee Equity Plan (the “Plan”) was adopted by the
Board of Directors on March 26, 2002 and by the stockholders of the Company on
June 13, 2002.  Amendment No. 1 to the
Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on April 4, 2003 and the
stockholders of the Company on June 13, 2003. 
The Plan, including Amendment No. 1, is hereinafter referred to as the
EEP.


 


The EEP is hereby amended as
follows:


 


Section 1.  Amendment
to Plan.


 


A.            The
last sentence of Section 11 of the EEP is hereby deleted.


 


B.            A
new subsection (c) to Section  14 of the
EEP is hereby added, as follows:


 


“(c) Minimum Vesting. 
Restricted Stock Units, Stock Awards, Performance Units and
Other Awards that are granted in respect to individual or corporate performance
shall vest no sooner than one year from the date of grant, and Restricted Stock
Units, Stock Awards, Performance Units and Other Awards that are granted in
connection with hiring or retention arrangements between the Company and a
Participant shall vest no sooner than three years from the date of grant
(subject to early vesting as provided in Section 7(c) above and such other
additional circumstances as the Committee may determine, in its discretion).”


 


C.            The
second proviso in the first sentence of Section 16 of the EEP is hereby deleted
and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:


 


“...and provided further, that, except as
contemplated by Section 15(b) above, the Board or Committee may not, without
the approval of the Company’s stockholders, increase the maximum number of
shares issuable under the plan, reduce the exercise price of a Stock Option or
Stock Appreciation Right, or modify Section 8(b) or Section 14(a) above.”


 


  Section 2.  Instruments
to be Read Together.  This
Amendment shall be deemed incorporated into and made a part of the EEP.  This Amendment and the EEP shall henceforth
be read together.


 


Section 3.  Effective
Date.  The effective date of
this Amendment shall be the date of its adoption by either the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors or the Board of Directors.


 


Section 4.  Effect on
the Plan.  Except as
specifically modified above, the terms of the EEP shall remain in full force
and effect.


 

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Pathmark Stores, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed this 25th
day of March, 2004.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PATHMARK
  STORES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
   

  	
  /s/Marc A.
  Strassler

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Marc A.
  Strassler

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice
  President
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45327

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRYON NATHAN HAWLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: July 12, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Bryon Nathan Hawley pled guilty to felony injury to children, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). 

The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of five years, to run consecutively with Hawley’s sentence in a separate case. The 

district court retained jurisdiction and, at the conclusion of the rider, placed Hawley on 

probation. Subsequently, Hawley was found to have violated the terms of the probation, and the 

district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. 

Having been granted relief in post-conviction proceedings, Hawley filed an Idaho Criminal 

Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Hawley appeals.
2

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Hawley’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Hawley’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
1210-AB32-2-1579.html[7/26/2015 8:19:31 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxv-jiqc

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-2076

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: anthony diorio

General Comment

I am totally capable of handling decisions for my 401k and IRA funds. I don't care for help. I am doing just fine

 without it.
#### James Hall, *Respondent, v.*Benjamin F. Chandler, Appellant.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bocees, J.
§ 585.76 Reporting requirements. ( a ) *Advanced credit phase-in reporting requirements.* ( 1 ) Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2008, through August 31, 2014, each manufacturer choosing to certify vehicles manufactured during any of those production years as complying with the upgraded moving deformable barrier (S7.2 of Standard No. 214)(49 CFR 571.214) or vehicle-to-pole requirements (S9) of Standard No. 214 shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration providing the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in § 585.2 of this part.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Phase-in reporting requirements.* Within 60 days after the end of each of the production years ending August 31, 2011, August 31, 2012, August 31, 2013, and August 31, 2014, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with the moving deformable barrier requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214 and with the vehicle-to-pole requirements of S9 of that Standard for its vehicles produced in that year. Each report shall provide the information specified in paragraph (c) of this section and in section 585.2 of this part.
( c ) *Advanced credit phase-in report content* — ( 1 ) *Production of complying vehicles.* With respect to the reports identified in § 585.76(a), each manufacturer shall report for the production year for which the report is filed the number of vehicles, by make and model year: That are certified as meeting the moving deformable barrier test requirements of S7.2 of Standard No. 214, *Side impact protection* (49 CFR 571.214), and that are certified as meeting the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of S9 of Standard No. 214.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Phase-in report content* — ( 1 ) *Basis for phase-in production goals.* Each manufacturer shall provide the number of vehicles manufactured in the current production year, or, at the manufacturer's option, in each of the three previous production years. A new manufacturer that is, for the first time, manufacturing passenger cars for sale in the United States must report the number of passenger cars manufactured during the current production year.
( 2 ) *Production of complying vehicles.* Each manufacturer shall report for the production year being reported on, and each preceding production year, to the extent that vehicles produced during the preceding years are treated under Standard No. 214 as having been produced during the production year being reported on, information on the number of vehicles that meet the moving deformable barrier test requirements of S7 of Standard No. 214, *Side Impact Protection* (49 CFR 571.214), and the number of vehicles that meet the vehicle-to-pole test requirements of S9 of that standard.
[72 FR 51972, Sept. 11, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 32485, June 9, 2008]
From: Brooke Pollack [mailto:Brooke.Pollack@ctcconsulting.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:02 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Please do not require any type of lifetime income distribution option.  This is an absolutely

terrible idea and should not be put into action.  It is not your job to ensure that people save

their money wisely or manage it correctly after retirement.  If you do annuities only, what if

someone wants to make a big purchase, they would surely have to pay fees simply to access

their own money.  I would absolutely never ever use this option and would not want my money

tied up in an annuity.   

As to question 13, NO, this option should not be required for defined contribution plans, and if

you decide to do this anyways, it would be an even worse idea to make this the default option.  I

want the freedom to move my money around and adjust my asset allocations as I see fit and to

cash out my 401(k) at any given time if I so choose.  This requirement would keep me from ever

using a 401(k).  I would rather take the after‐tax money and put it in my own brokerage account

or a private IRA that would not have any such requirement.   

For question 17, fees need to be overly‐explicitly expressed to participants.  There should also

be explicitly disclosed that the government is heavily involved with AIG, which just happens to

be a very large annuity provider.

To summarize, do not include lifetime annuities in 401(k)s, and if you choose do so against the

best interest of the American public, do not ever require these plans nor make them the default

option.

Sincerely,

Brooke Pollack

*This email speaks solely on behalf of myself and in no way represents the views of my

employer*

This message is solely for the use of the recipients to whom it is intended and addressed and may contain 

information that is personal, confidential and privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or an employee or 

agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, please note that any review, 

dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. This 

message is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any 

particular security or investment product. No representation is made regarding the accuracy or completeness of 

the information contained herein, and the sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the 

contents of this message that arise as a result of this electronic transmission. Certain assumptions may have 

been made in the preparation of the information contained in this message and such assumptions are subject to 

change without notice. Electronic communication files (email) between the recipient and CTC Consulting, LLC may 

be reviewed by U.S. regulatory agencies and are subject to the archive file recordkeeping policies and procedures 

of CTC Consulting, LLC. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately 

by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.
<PAGE>

                                     Exhibit (23)-2
                                     Commonwealth Edison Company
                                     Form 10-K File No. 1-1839


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated January 30, 1998, on
Commonwealth Edison Company and subsidiary companies' consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 1997 (Report), included in
Commonwealth Edison Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 30, 1998,
to the inclusion in this Form 10-K of our report dated January 30, 1998, on the
supplemental schedule of Commonwealth Edison Company as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1997, and to the incorporation of such reports into
Commonwealth Edison Company's previously filed prospectuses as follows: (1)
prospectus dated August 21, 1986, constituting part of Form S-3 Registration
Statement File No. 33-6879, as amended (relating to the Company's Debt
Securities and Common Stock); (2) prospectus dated January 7, 1994, constituting
part of Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 33-51379 (relating to the
Company's Debt Securities and Cumulative Preference Stock); (3) prospectus dated
September 19, 1995, constituting part of Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3
Registration Statement File No. 33-61343, as amended (relating to Company-
Obligated Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of ComEd Financing I); (4)
prospectus dated June 13, 1997 constituting part of Form S-4 Registration
Statement File No. 333-28369 (relating to Company-Obligated Mandatorily
Redeemable Preferred Securities of ComEd Financing II); and (5) Form S-8
Registration Statement File No. 333-33847 (relating to the Commonwealth Edison
Company Excess Benefit Savings Plan). We also consent to the application of our
Report, incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, to the ratios of earnings
to fixed charges and the ratios of earnings to fixed charges and preferred and
preference stock dividend requirements for each of the years ended December 31,
1997, 1996 and 1995 appearing in Exhibit 99 of Commonwealth Edison Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K dated January 30, 1998.



                                         ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 1998
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to the requirementset forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), James M. Gower, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and James H.Welch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

InWitness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as ofNovember 8, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ JAMES M. GOWER      |                    | /s/ JAMES H. WELCH |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------|--------|
| James M. Gower          | James H. Welch          |
| Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.