alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(g)

                             JACOBSON STORES INC.

                          Management Incentive Plan
                          -------------------------

Senior management incentives are based on accomplishing the key goals of our
business plan. Incentives are structured to strive for excellence.

The management incentive plan is designed to:

 o  foster an awareness of the Company's objective of consistent, profitable
    operation.

 o  motivate senior management to meet the shorter term needs of shareholders
    without sacrificing long-term profitability.

 o  encourage senior management to "stretch" for higher levels of performance
    in the future.

 o  establish target incentives for each participant so that each person is
    aware of what payout percentages can be expected with various levels of
    accomplishment.

 o  encourage retention of key employees.

The principal features of the plan include:

 o  participation limited to salaried officers of the Company.

 o  specific performance criteria and weightings established at the beginning
    of the year for each participant. (at the most senior level, primary
    emphasis placed on corporate goal achievement; at the VP-Staff level,
    primary emphasis placed on individual goal achievement).

 o  potential payout as a percent of the base salary of each participant as
    follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   Threshold     Target     Maximum
                        % of target award                0%       100%         150%
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------
               <S>                                     <C>         <C>          <C>
              Chairman/CEO/President                   0%           35%         52.2%
              Vice Chairman                            0            30          45
              EVP - Marketing & Stores                 0            30          45
              SVPs                                     0            25          37.5
              VP - Regional Director of Stores         0            20          30
              VP - DMM                                 0            20          30
              VP - Operations                          0            20          30
              VP - Staff Positions                     0            15          22.5
</TABLE>


 o  Threshold corporate performance criteria (announced at the beginning of
    the year) to be achieved before any payout is made under the plan.

                                                                    (3/26/98)
No. 65539.

#### E. O. Schaeffer Chemical Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/23033 (NewYork).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GR E GO R Y B R YA N R US H, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50419 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 6 0 7 - PA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P e r c yA nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G reg o ry B ryan R u sh ap p eal s fro m th e l i fet i m e t erm o f su p erv i sedrel ease i m p o sedfo l l o w i n g h i s g u i l ty-p l ea co n v i ct i o n fo r p o ssessi o n o f ch i l dp o rn o g rap h y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 2 A ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED MA R 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 50419 2 § 1291, a nd w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tthi s appe a l s houl d be di s m i s s e d i n l i ghtof the appeal w ai ver s etforth i n R ush’ s pl eaagre em ent . W e dec l i ne t o app l y the appeal w ai v er b ecau se th e l an g u ag e co n cern i n g th e su p erv i sedrel ease t erm i s am b i g u o u s, a n ds o th e w a iv e rd o e s n o t p r e c lu d e o u rr e v ie w . Se e U ni te d States v . C ope , 527 F . 3d 94 4, 95 0-51 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). R us h c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d byf a i l i ng t o pr ovi de a n e xpl a na t i on f

ori m pos i ng al i f

e t i m e t e rm of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . B e c aus e the di stri ctcourtdi d n otexpl ai n i t s dec i si on t o i m po se a l i fe t i m e t erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e , ori t s r a t i ona l e f orthe l i f e t i m e s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e t e rm , w e va c a t e the s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e te rm a n dr e m a n df o rf u rth e rs e n te n c in g p r o c e e d in g s . See U ni ted States v . H

am m ons , 558 F . 3d 1100, 1103- 05 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de a ny re as on s f or se nt ence i m po se d con st i tut ed re vers i bl e pl ai n err or). I n l i g h to f

th e f o r e g o i n g , w e d o n o tr e a c h Ru s h ’ s c o n t e n t i o n th a tth e l i f e t i me t erm of supervi se d rel ea se i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40653 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO LAGUNAS-LEIJA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-870-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo LagunasLeija raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2547 MCE CMK P

vs.

M. PENNER, MD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 26, 2005 request for

the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: August 3, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 14,483.

#### UNITED STATES v. AYMAR et al.

[13 Int. Rev. Rec. 151.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 3, 1871.

Customs Duties — Warehouse Bond — Weights— Average.

This was an action brought to recover an alleged balance of duty due on a warehouse bond executed by defendants on an importation of tea in 1864. The defence was payment. The importation was in June, 1864. of 3.834 half chests, and before the weigher’s return was made the defendants obtained permission to withdraw from warehouse 2.555 half chests, which were exported, and in November, 1804, paid duty on 1,279 half chests, in both eases at estimated weights. On liquidation of the entry there was found after crediting the estimated weights an apparent balance of $2,110 due the United States. It appeared on the trial that the' weight of tea was taken by weighing twenty chests at a draft, without regard to the lines of teas, or marks per invoice; nor could the weight of the particular chests exported, or duty paid, be ascertained from it, but simply the gross weight of the importation. The claim of the United States was made up by averaging the weight of the importation, and distributing it ratably among the chests. For the defence, it was shown that the chests were of different weights and tares, and teas of different values, and that relatively the heavier teas were exported; and they pro*908•duced the return of a city weigher showing they had paid duty on more tea than was left in the country after the export, and their account of sales to the same effect. The jury found for the defendants.

H.E. Davies. Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., for United States.

Chase, Hartley, & Coleman, for defendants.
#### Mary Florin-McBride, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 388]

—Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, J.), dated July 22, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Presiding Judge Corbett at the Court of Claims. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In his objections, plaintiff asserts defendant Parker should not be dismissed because

1

plaintiff filed a motion for substitution on September 7, 2006. The court’s record does not reflect

that plaintiff ever filed a motion for substitution with respect to defendant Parker. In any case,

plaintiff fails to assert who should be substituted for defendant Parker. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2559 LKK KJM P

vs.

CSP-SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 17, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Both

parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

1

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 87 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 17, 2007 are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Parker is dismissed;

3. Plaintiff’s March 31, 2006 request for a temporary restraining order is denied;

4. Defendants’ April 20, 2006 motion to dismiss is granted;

5. Defendant Solomon is dismissed; and

6. Defendants’ August 31, 2006 motion for summary judgment as to defendant

Rohrer is denied.

DATED: March 29, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 87 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2
Greendale

Milwaukee

OE E Milwaukee

Thiensville

South

Milwaukee

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

n

█

650

600

600

700 ¬«32

¬«32

N MARIETTA AVE N WAHL AVE

N SHEPARD AVE

N HACKETT AVE N SUMMIT AVE

N LA

KE DR

N LINCOLN

MEM

OR AI L DR

N

LAKE

DR

Lake

Michigan

North

Point

LAKE MICHIGAN

69

74

68

47

47

64

2'

000

47

FEET

47

47

30"

N

70

72

35

N

5'

4

71

4

47' 45'

72

73

43°

4 35

52'

62

E

29 4

43° 4

47

47

34

70

64

4 37

87°

66

4

63

30"

47

47

30"

69

4

47

50' 47'

38

45'

000

4

47

34

47

30"

65

31

47

2'

2

47

2

68

47

000m

000m

74

30

47

47

000m

87°

87°

000

410

4

30" 4

65

FEET

47

E 43°

87°

38

00'

30"

540 4

560

47

67

47

50'

4

47

4

30"

47

67

47

30"

29

43°

66

47

47

47

31 33

37

380

52'

32 33

FEET

71

000 FEET

36

07'

4 00'

73

4

63

4

62

4

000m

07'

5'

36

MILWAUKEE OE E, WI

2013

Expressway Local Connector

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

Secondary Hwy Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

MILWAUKEE OE E QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE CO.

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

Imagery..................................................NAIP, June 2010

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2013

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1999

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 16T

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983 (south

zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.12

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

DN

16T

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2013 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 33 ́

10 MILS

3° 46 ́

67 MILS
Exhibit 21

                               XANSER CORPORATION
                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST


XANSER CORPORATION (formerly Kaneb Services, Inc.)
   CORPORATE INSURERS LTD
   FURMANITE GERMANY, INC.
      Management Services Furmanite Holding GmbH
      Furmanite Technische Dienstleisfungen GmbH (formerly Zweipack GmbH)
      Furmanite Industrie Service GmbH
   XTRIA LLC (formerly FIELDS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.)
      Double Eagle Cabling and Commnications LLC
      InformaTech LLC
      Ellsworth Associates, Inc.
      National Asset Information Services, Inc.
      Collateral Protection Insurance, Inc.
      Viata Corporation
   KANEB FINANCIAL CORPORATION (formerly Asset Based Lenders, Inc.)
      Furmanite Equipment Leasing Company LLC
        (formerly Kaneb Equipment Leasing Company)
   FURMANITE WORLDWIDE, INC. (formerly Kaneb International, Inc.)
      Furmanite America Inc.
      Furmanite Offshore Services, Inc.
      Furmanite Maylasia LLC
      Furmanite Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Denon Pty Ltd)
      Furmanite NZ Limited
        (formerly Furmanite V & P Eng. Ltd, formerly V & P Eng. Ltd)
      Furmanite Holding AS
        Furmanite AS (Norway)
        CMS:  Corrision Monitoring Services AS
      Furmanite SA
      Furmanite NV
        Metalock NV (Belgium)
      Furmeta Holding BV
        Metaholding BV
          Metalock BV
          Furmanite BV
      Furmanite East Asia Limited (Hong Kong)
      Furmanite Singapore PTE Limited
      Furmanite Limited (formerly Kaneb UK plc)
        Furmanite 1986 Limited
          Furmanite International Limited
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/15 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Adam Chibib, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TippingPoint Technologies, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual 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 annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

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

 

(c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: April 20, 2004
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al.,

NO. CIV. S-04-2611 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff(s),

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

DISCO AZTECA, 

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of the plaintiff in the above action the court has

determined that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160, dispositional documents are to

be filed on or before November 7, 2006. All dates/hearings set in this matter, including any

pending motions, are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02611-FCD-DAD Document 63 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationsPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, each of the undersigned officers of Witness Systems, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge and belief that theAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated:  February  7, 2007 |   |   |     |                       |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------|----------------------------|
|                                |   |   |     |                       |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |
|                                |   | BY:    |     | /S/ NICHOLAS  DISCOMBE     |   |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |   |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |   |
|                                |   |   |     | Nicholas  Discombe    |   |
| * *                            |   |   | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer* |   |

 

 

 
| Dated:  February  7, 2007 |   |   |     |                       |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------|----------------------------|
|                                |   |   |     |                       |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |
|                                |   | BY:    |     | /S/ WILLIAM F.  EVANS      |   |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |   |
|                                |   |   |     |                       |   |
|                                |   |   |     | William F. Evans           |   |
| * *                            |   |   | * * | *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Witness Systems, Inc. and willbe retained by Witness Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
No. 62609.

#### Lipman’s *v.*United States,

protests 230812-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, T. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:04-mc-00011-DFL-GGH   Document 3    Filed 02/07/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T14:07:27-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO