alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      10.18





SUMMARY
      OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS AS OF FEBRUARY 28,
      2007








The
      following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the
      Company’s non-employee directors as of February 28, 2007. This document is
      intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no
      way
      is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee
      director.





Retainer





Non-employee
      directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $20,000. The Chairman of the
      Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $14,000, the Chairman of the
      Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $8,000 and the Chairman
      of
      each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee
      receives an annual retainer of $5,000. A director that chairs more than one
      committee receives a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs. All
      of
      the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.





Meeting
      Fees





Per
      meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:





-
            For
                meetings of the Board of Directors, Compensation Committee, Corporate
                Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee,
                $1,250.





-
            For
                meetings of the Audit Committee, $2,250. In addition, the Chairman
                gets an
                additional $1,250 for preparing to conduct each quarterly
                meeting.





Equity
      Compensation





Under
      the
      terms of the Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to
      receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based
      compensation awards. However, the Company does not make any such awards to
      non-employee directors under its current compensation practices.





All
      non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all
      services as a director, including committee participation or special
      assignments.
----

----

I Comunicações

Conselho

----

Informação relativa à prorrogação da Convenção sobre o Comércio de Cereais de 1995)

(2006/C 160/01)

Na sua 21.a sessão (Londres, 14 de Junho de 2005), o Conselho Internacional dos Cereais decidiu, nos termos do disposto na Convenção sobre o Comércio de Cereais de 1995 (1), prorrogar a Convenção por dois anos até 30 de Junho de 2007.

----

(1)JO L 21, 27.1.1996, p. 47.

----

Comissão

----

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

10 de Julho de 2006

(2006/C 160/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

----

----

Publicação das decisões dos Estados-membros no que respeita à concessão ou revogação de licenças de exploração em conformidade com o n.o 4 do artigo 13.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92 do Conselho relativo às licenças das transportadoras aéreas (1) (2)

(2006/C 160/03)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

ÁUSTRIA

Licenças de exploração concedidas

Categoria A:   Licença de exploração concedidas a transportadoras que não preenchem os critérios previstos no n.o 7, alínea a), do artigo 5.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92

Licenças de exploração revogadas

Categoria A:   Licença de exploração concedidas a transportadoras que não preenchem os critérios previstos no n.o 7, alínea a), do artigo 5.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92

Categoria B:   Licença de exploração concedidas às transportadoras que preenchem os critérios previstos no n.o 7, alínea a), do artigo 5.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92

----

(1)JO L 240 de 24.8.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Comunicadas à Comissão Europeia antes de 31.8.2005.

----

----

Publicação das decisões dos Estados-membros no que respeita à concessão ou revogação de licenças de exploração em conformidade com o n.o 4 do artigo 13.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92 do Conselho relativo às licenças das transportadoras aéreas (1) (2)

(2006/C 160/04)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

DINAMARCA

Licenças de exploração concedidas

Categoria B:   Licença de exploração concedidas às transportadoras que preenchem os critérios previstos no n.o 7, alínea a), do artigo 5.o do Regulamento (CEE) n.o 2407/92

----

(1)JO L 240 de 24.8.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Comunicadas à Comissão Europeia antes de 31.8.2005.

----

----

Notificação prévia de uma concentração

(Processo n.o COMP/M.4244 — Ravago/Muehlstein)

Processo susceptível de beneficiar do procedimento simplificado

(2006/C 160/05)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

----

(1)JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)JO C 56 de 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----

----

Lista dos organismos e dos laboratórios designados pelos países terceiros para preencherem os documentos que devem acompanhar qualquer importação de vinho para a Comunidade

[Artigo 29.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 883/2001 da Comissão]

(2006/C 160/06)

(Esta lista anula e substitui a publicada no «Jornal Oficial da União Europeia» C 336 de 31 de Dezembro de 2005)

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

FELIX D. WHITTINGTON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DONALD VAUGHN, et al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4346

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of October, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached communications shall be filed by the Clerk.

BY THE COURT:

 

_______________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04346-MK Document 43 Filed 10/29/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 61276.

protest 220001-K (New York).

#### Baron Iron & Equipment Co. and Barr Shipping Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “limited service” seamless steel oil-well casings the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States Supply & Mfg. Co., The Crispin Company*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 95, C. D. 1804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1

                     CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


TO: Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (formerly Cavalcade of Sports Media,
Inc.)

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc.'s (formerly
Cavalcade of Sports Media, Inc.) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2002 of our report dated April 28, 2003 and contained in
the Registration Statement No.333-109365 of Pacificap Entertainment Holdings,
Inc. Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such report relates to
the financial statements of Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2002 .

                                    /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANOU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                      Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP



McLean, Virginia
April_16, 2004
No. 54567.

#### B. Altman & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 600808-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States v. Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TUNG MA : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

KENNETH D. KYLER, et al. : NO. 02-4380

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of November, 2002, upon consideration of the

respondent’s motion for enlargement of time to file response (Document No. 9), it is

hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion is GRANTED;

2. The answer to the habeas petition shall be filed on or before December

31, 2002.

BY THE COURT:

 

DIANE M. WELSH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04380-PBT Document 10 Filed 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 1
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4653 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Before the First Division,

May 21, 1962

No. 66770.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/224 and 61/14480 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass paperweights similar in all material respects to *those the*subject of Abstract 64185, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8430 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 093

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### SB

accomplishment 0.5 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 8 $ 680.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in complia nce:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 680



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Co sts:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to exp lain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD h ave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requir ements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
No. 49091.

#### Protest 13269-K of New Victoria Importing Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The record disclosed that the so-called duress certificate bore no signature. From the facts presented it was found that this case falls squarely within the ruling of *Huber*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 790). The plaintiff’s claims were therefore overruled.
Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 117-4 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-01099-ER Document 117-4 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2
GROVER SELLERS AUSTIN 11. TEXAS 

, 

Honorable B. F. McKee 

County Auditor', Hidalgo County 

Edinburg, Texas 

Opinion No. O-6972 

Re: Necessity for Attorney 

General's approval of common 

school district refuning bonds 

Dear Sir: 

and their registration by State 

Comptroller. 

Your recent communication to this department reads 

as follows: 

"On April 10, 1921, the Commissioners Court of 

Ridalgo County authorized the issuance of County of 

Hidalgo, Texas, Common School District No. 9 Schoolhouse Bonds, which bohds were approved by opinion 

of the Attorney General of Texas, dated April 13, 

1921, registered In the Comptroller's Office, page 

349, Bond Registry, Volume 24, Registry No. 5959. 

"On March 10, 1921, the Commissioners Court of 

Hidalgo County, Texas, authorized the issuance of 

County of Hidalgo Common School District No. 14 

Schoolhouse Bonds, which were approved by opinion 

of the Attorney General of Texas, registered in the 

Comptroller's Office in 5950 Bond Registry, Volume 24, 

page 350. 

'On January 10, 1926, the Commissioners Court of 

Hidalgo County, Texas, authorized the issuance of County 

of Hidalgo, Texas, Common School District No. 17 Schoolbusq Bonds, which were approved by opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, registered in the 

Comptroller's Office, page 129, Bond Registry, Volume 29, 

Registry No. 9141. 

"Part of the bonds were paid off, but a total of 

$18,003.03 of bonds remain unpaid and the various school 

districts desire to refund the bonds, reducing-the interest rate to 4s and making the principal payable forty 

years from the date of issue. 
Honorable B. F. McKee, page 2 

,” Question: Is it necessary to secure the 

opinion of the Attorney General of Texas on the 

refunding bond issue, and is it necessary that 

such refunding bonds be registered in the office 

of the Comptroller of the State of Texas?" 

Both questions submitted are answered in the 

affirmative, based on our former Opinion No. O-3856, a 

copy of which is herewith enclosed. 

Very truly yours, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED DEC.14, 1945 

By s/ L. Ii. FLEWELLEN 

s/ GROVER SELLERS Assistant 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

LHF:EP 

AMM APPROVED Opinion Committee 

By GWB, Chairman
No. 58478.

protest 153459-K (San Francisco).

#### Stephen Rug Mills, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the linoleum the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co., W. J. Byrnes & Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 559), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32

TECO CAPITAL TRUST II

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Each of the undersigned officers of TECO Energy, Inc. (which is designated to make compliance filings on behalf of TECO Capital Trust II (the Trust)) certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely
for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                      |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 29, 2006 |  | /s/ S. W. HUDSON                            
|                      |  | S. W. HUDSON                                
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer of TECO Energy, Inc.



|                      |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 29, 2006 |  | /s/ G. L. GILLETTE                          
|                      |  | G. L. GILLETTE                              
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer of TECO Energy, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form
10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24615]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1291]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Curia 
Missouri, Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Curia Missouri Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
January 8, 2024. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before January 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on August 3, 2023, Curia Missouri Inc., 2460 West 
Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, applied to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Drug
          Controlled substance            code           Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid..............    2010  I
Amphetamine............................    1100  II
Lisdexamfetamine.......................    1205  II
Methylphenidate........................    1724  II
Phenylacetone..........................    8501  II
Tapentadol.............................    9780  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances for internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. 
No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this 
registration.

Claude Redd,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-24615 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
1 On page 3, the Report and Recommendation states that “The initial burden of

proving disability rests with the claimant, who can meet this burden by demonstrating an

ability to return to previous work.” The word “ability” would appear to be a

typographical error; the intended word, doubtless, was “inability.” 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TONI SHINN,

Petitioner

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant

Civil Action No. 05-0433

ORDER

February 21, 2006

Upon consideration of the pleadings and record herein, and after review of the

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, it is

hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.1

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.

3. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary is DENIED. 

Case 2:05-cv-00433-LP Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
4. The decision of the Commissioner which denied Supplemental Security

Income is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner

for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

BY THE COURT:

_s/ Louis Pollak______________

LOUIS H. POLLAK J.

Case 2:05-cv-00433-LP Document 15 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Morris S. Young,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”),that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 9, 2010 | By:    | /s/ MORRIS S. YOUNG                                                      |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Morris S. Young *Chief Executive Officer**(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
# Beginning

New Budgetary Authority (Gross), Detail[1]
----

Statements to be entered in the Council minutes of 17 July 2006

(2006/C 171/02)

----

(1)OJ C 203, 17.7.1999, p. 1.

----
:397220-1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

MARA FLAMM, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 02-4302

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. et al. :

:

Defendants. :

 

ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO

CROSSCLAIM OF JODI H. BROWN, M.D.

Defendants, Sarner & Associates, P.C.; Joshua Sarner, Esquire; and Leonard Sarner,

Esquire (hereinafter collectively, “attorney defendants”), by and through their attorneys Christie,

Pabarue, Mortensen and Young, A Professional Corporation, hereby submit this Answer to the

Crossclaim of co-defendant Jodi H. Brown, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Brown") and in support

thereof aver as follows:

75. - 76. Denied.

WHEREFORE, attorney defendants pray that the Court grant judgment in their favor,

dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, award attorney defendants all reasonable

attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred by them in defending this case, and provide such

other and further relief as may be appropriate. Attorney defendants further pray that the Court

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 31 Filed 12/23/2002 Page 1 of 3
 :397220-1

grant judgment in their favor and dismiss Dr. Brown's cross-claim with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTIE, PABARUE, MORTENSEN and YOUNG

A Professional Corporation

By: 

JAMES W. CHRISTIE (I.D. No. 12068)

WILLIAM F. MCDEVITT (I.D. No. 80206)

1880 JFK Blvd., 10th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103/ (215) 587-1600

Attorneys for Defendants, Sarner & Associates, P.C.;

Joshua Sarner, Esquire and Leonard Sarner, Esquire

(“Attorney Defendants”)

Dated:

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 31 Filed 12/23/2002 Page 2 of 3
397559_1

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing Answer to the Crossclaim of

Jodi H. Brown, M.D. of Attorney Defendants were served today via first class mail to all counsel

of record at the addresses listed below:

Robert P. Brand, Esquire

1200 Walnut Street, 5th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Anthony Baratta, Esquire

Baratta & Russell, P.C.

The Loft at Mount Jolly

2661 Huntingdon Pike

Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

Bayard H. Graf, Esquire

Graf & Graf, P.C.

162 Beaumont Road

Devon, PA 19333-1849

 

WILLIAM F. McDEVITT

Dated:

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 31 Filed 12/23/2002 Page 3 of 3