alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005

                                    /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Francis Mailhot
                                    Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 10.1


 



U.S. Energy Corp.


Performance Compensation Plan


2015 Performance Period Matrix







Plan Objectives







The objectives of the Performance Compensation Plan (the "Plan") are to:








	
·

	
incentivize top level managers and senior management of U.S. Energy Corp ("US Energy" or the "Company");








	
·

	
to improve shareholder value by accomplishing aggressive, yet realistic, financial and production objectives;








	
·

	
encourage employees to contribute to the ultimate goal of improving shareholder value by making participating employees eligible for an annual performance bonus under the Plan; and








	
·

	
heavily weighting the compensation of senior management towards performance based incentives.












Performance Period







The Performance Period shall be from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.







Award Determination







The Compensation Committee and the Board shall have the authority, in their discretion, to determine whether any bonuses have been earned under the Plan for a particular Performance Period.  In addition to the Financial and Operation Factors defined below, the Compensation Committee and the Board shall have the authority, in their discretion; to impose an activation trigger (the "Bonus Trigger") conditioning any awards under the Plan on the satisfaction of designated performance criteria.  In the event the Bonus Trigger has not been satisfied, the Compensation Committee and the Board shall have the authority, in their discretion, to reduce or forgo any bonuses under the Plan.







2015 Award Levels







The Threshold, Target, and Maximum bonus awards (as a percentage of base salary) for the 2015 Performance Period are provided below under "2015 Bonus Award Matrix Criteria".







2015 Performance Metric







The performance metric utilized for 2015 will be Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization ("EBITDA").  The Compensation Committee will establish a target level for the performance metric, the achievement of which will result in earned incentives equal to 100% of the participant's target award amount.  Additionally, the Compensation Committee, in its discretion, may determine to reduce an award under the 


 








 


Plan even though certain objectives have been met.  See below 2015 Bonus Award Matrix Criteria.







Payment of Awards







Payment of all bonuses under the Plan is to be made after the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 is filed, but before March 15, 2016.







2015 Bonus Award Matrix Criteria







	
Metric

	 	
% Allocated

	 	
Criteria


	 	 	 	 	 
	
EBITDA

	 	
100%

	 	
100% for positive EBITDA for the year, per the audited consolidated financial statements
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT C. BECK, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

15 USCMA 269, 35 CMR 241

No. 18,007

February 26, 1965

*Lieutenant Colonel Joseph B. McMullin*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Colonel Robert 0. Rollman.*

*Major Neil Kasdan*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Colonel Emanuel Leivis.*

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

Tried by general court-martial at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, upon a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 128, 10 USC § 928, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to bad-conduct *270discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for twelve months, and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review upon the same issue confronting us in United States v Enloe, 15 USCMA 256, 35 CMR 228, and United States v Meyer, 15 USCMA 268, 35 CMR 240, both this day decided.

As in the cited cases, agents of the Office of Special Investigations, based upon the provisions of an official directive — here found in OSI (USAF) Regulation NR 124-14, dated February 17, 1964 — refused to submit to a pretrial interview with defense counsel except in the presence of a third party. In this case, such third party was, pursuant to the regulations, “a disinterested attorney from the office of the local Staff Judge Advocate.” One of the agents involved appeared as a witness at the trial and testified to the obtaining of a confession from the accused. The other agents involved were not called by either side. Although “personally, as an individual, most sympathetic to your point of view” and viewing the directive as being of “highly doubtful worth,” the law officer overruled a defense motion which sought to obtain surcease from the terms of the OSI order.

We find nothing in this record to distinguish the situation presented from that which confronted us in United States v Enloe, and United States v Meyer, both supra. We reiterate that, while counsel may not be able to compel a witness to submit to an interview without meeting such conditions as the witness imposes, the Government may not, by directive or otherwise, ordinarily interpose itself between them and set conditions for the interview on behalf of the witness. United States v Enloe, supra.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent. See my opinion in United States v Enloe, 15 USCMA 256, 35 CMR 228.
ex10-12.htm


Exhibit 10.12

 

 

REACHLOCAL, INC. 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM

 

Effective as of December 12, 2014

 

Cash Compensation

 

	
Board Service
	 	 	 	 
	
Annual Retainer:
	 	$	35,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
Committee Service, Non-Executive Chairman
	 	 	 	 
	
Audit Committee:
	 	 	 	 
	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	 	$	15,000	 
	
Committee Member Annual Retainer:
	 	$	10,000	 
	
Compensation Committee:
	 	 	 	 
	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	 	$	10,000	 
	
Committee Member Annual Retainer:
	 	$	5,000	 
	
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:
	 	 	 	 
	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	 	$	7,500	 
	
Committee Member Annual Retainer:
	 	$	2,500	 
	
Non-Executive Chairman:
	 	$	100,000	 


 

 

Directors may elect to receive shares of Common Stock or deferred shares of Common Stock in lieu of annual cash compensation, which, in the case of deferred shares, shall be in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. Cash retainers that are not timely elected to be received as shares of Common Stock or deferred shares of Common Stock will be paid quarterly in arrears promptly following the end of the applicable calendar quarter, but in no event more than thirty (30) days after the end of such quarter.

 

Equity Compensation

 

	
Non-Employee Directors:

	
Initial Stock Option Grant:
	
A stock option to purchase 30,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Initial Option”). Ten-year term.

	 	 
	
Each Initial Option will be automatically granted to newly appointed non-employee directors on the date of their initial appointment to the Board. Initial Options shall vest as to 1/3rd of the shares on the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date, subject to continued service through the applicable vesting date.

	 
	
Annual Stock Option Grant:
	
Annual stock option with a value of $150,000 (the “Annual Option”). Ten-year term. 

	 	 
	
Each Annual Option will be automatically granted to newly elected or continuing non-employee directors on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders and shall vest in full on the earlier of (i) the one-year anniversary of the grant date and (ii) the next annual shareholder meeting, subject to continued service through the applicable vesting date.



 

This program may be amended, modified or terminated at any time and for any reason by the Board in its sole and absolute discretion.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, the  undersigned  officer of Goldman Sachs
Hedge Fund Strategies  LLC, hereby  certifies that Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund
Partners II, LLC's (the "Company") Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2005 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                            /s/ Tobin V. Levy
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Name:   Tobin V. Levy
                                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  November 14, 2005

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Before the Second Division,

December 18, 1957

No. 61413.

protest 267393-K (New York).

#### Columbus-Dixon, Inc. *v.*United States,

*522Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the scrubber brushes are parts of vacuum cleaners which have as an essential feature an electrical element or device, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61398.

protest 299293-K (New York).

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


Tuna--Tariff-Rate Quota; The Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar Year 
2007, on Tuna Classifiable Under Subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Announcement of the quota quantity of tuna in airtight 
containers for Calendar Year 2007.

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

SUMMARY: Each year the tariff-rate quota for tuna described in 
subheading 1604.14.22, HTSUS, is based on the apparent United States 
consumption of tuna in airtight containers during the preceding 
Calendar Year. This document sets forth the tariff-rate quota for 
Calendar Year 2007.

DATES: Effective Dates: The 2007 tariff-rate quota is applicable to 
tuna entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the 
period January 1, through December 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Headquarters Quota Branch, Textile 
Enforcement and Operations Division, Trade Policy and Programs, Office 
of International Trade, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 
Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-2650.

Background

    It has been determined that 18,678,022 kilograms of tuna in air-
tight containers may be entered and withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption during the Calendar Year 2007, at the rate of 6 percent ad 
valorem under subheading 1604.14.22, HTSUS. Any such tuna which is 
entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption during the current 
calendar year in excess of this quota will be dutiable at the rate of 
12.5 percent ad valorem under subheading 1604.14.30 HTSUS.

    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Daniel Baldwin,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
 [FR Doc. E7-5101 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8178 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8178

  To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to remove the 
          requirements relating to registered apprenticeships.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2024

    Mr. Good of Virginia (for himself and Mrs. Miller of Illinois) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to remove the 
          requirements relating to registered apprenticeships.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Apprenticeship Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. WIOA AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Career Pathway.--Section 3(7)(B) of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102(7)(B)) is amended by striking 
``registered'' and all that follows, and inserting a semicolon.
     (b) Identification of Eligible Providers.--Section 122(a) of the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3152(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by amending paragraph (2)(B) to read as follows:
                    ``(B) an entity that carries out apprenticeships; 
                or''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``for so long as the 
        corresponding program of the provider remains registered''.
    (c) Youthbuild Program.--Section 171 of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3226) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking paragraph (10); and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (11) and (12) as 
                paragraphs (10) and (11), respectively; and
            (2) by striking ``registered'' each place it appears.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

RUDOLPH SILAS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 3181

[ April 27, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 003099CF10A

.
Rudolph Silas, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v WALLACE T. GOODMAN, Recruit, U. S. Army, Appellee

12 USCMA 25, 30 CMR 25

No. 14,369

Decided November 18, 1960

*Lieutenant Colonel James G. McConaughy*and *First Lieutenant Jerome Nelson*were on the brief for Appellant, United States.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod, First Lieutenant Richard A. Baenen,*and *First Lieutenant Ralph T. Smith*were on the brief for Appellee, Accused.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The question presented by the certificate of The Judge Advocate General, United States Army, is as follows:

> “WAS THE BOARD OF REVIEW CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE LAW OFFICER ERRED (1) IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE COURT-MARTIAL THAT IT MIGHT ADJUDGE AN UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE OR A GENERAL DISCHARGE IN LIEU OF A DISHONORABLE OR BAD CONDUCT DISCHARGE AND (2) IN PREVENTING THE TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM URGING THE COURT-MARTIAL TO ADJUDGE AN UNDESIRABLE OR GENERAL DISCHARGE?”

The certified inquiry is answered in the negative. United States v Phipps, 12 USCMA 14, 30 CMR 14, decided November 4, 1960. Our answer to the issue before us does not, however, require that the decision of the board of review be reversed. That body, having concluded that it was error to deny the requested instruction and to refuse to permit the trial defense counsel to argue to the court-martial concerning the possibility of adjudging an administrative discharge, sought to remove the prejudice flowing therefrom by reassessment of the sen*26tence. Ultimately, it concluded that the adjudged sentence to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for one year was appropriate. While we do not believe that harm which solely involves the question of the accused’s punitive separation from the armed forces may be so purged, see United States v Fowle, 7 USCMA 349, 22 CMR 139, and United States v Lackey, 8 USCMA 718, 25 CMR 222, the fact that we find the law officer’s action free from error permits us to affirm the board of review’s final action on the case.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 61387.

protest 296807-K (New York).

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
#### Commonwealth *v.*Hoffman, Appellant.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*341
      *Richard U. T. Hoffman,*appellant, in propria persona.

*John B. Fowler, III,*Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

November 27, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant claims that he was not represented by counsel at trial and that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. Appellant was told only that he was “entitled to counsel” and was not told that he could have *free*counsel if indigent. This advice was inadequate. See *Commonwealth v. Ritchey,*431 Pa. 269, 245 A. 2d 446 *(1968); Commonwealth v. Blose,*430 Pa. 209, 241 A. 2d 918 (1968).

The petition for allocatur is granted, the order of the Superior Court, affirming the denial of the petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, is reversed, the order of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cumberland County is vacated and the record is remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Bell dissents.
Case No. 5,367.

#### GERNON v. BOECALINE.

[2 Wash. C. C. 130.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1807.

Ne Exeat — Authority op District Judges to Issue — Supporting Affidavit — Am endment.

•1. The district judges of the courts of the United States have no authority to issue writs of ne exeat.

[Cited in Loewenstein v. Biernbaum, Case No. 8,461a; Lewis v. Shainwald, 48 Fed. ■ 500.]

2. The affidavit upon which this writ will issue, should be positive to a debt, or to the belief of the plaintiff, that a certain balance of account was due.

3. The plaintiff was admitted to amend his affidavit; and being sworn, at the instance of the defendant, he was permitted to state, that a particular item of his claim had not been passed upon by arbitrators, who had examined the accounts between the parties.

A ne exeat had been awarded in this case, by the district judge, and bail taken. A motion was now made to discharge it, on the ground that the district judge had no power to award it Upon this ground, the court quashed the writ The plaintiff then moved to award a new writ, which was objected to by Levy, for defendant; the plaintiff having stated, that the bill is filed on account of a particular transaction, in a certain vessel, which transaction has been referred, and was settled, as appears by an item in the account, on which the arbitrators acted, in which they credit the defendant 9,000 dollars, on account of this vessel and cargo. Secondly: that the affidavit is insufficient, as it merely states that the plaintiff has a just demand against the defendant; whereas if he claimed a debt, he should have stated positively, that so much was due, or if he claimed a balance of aceount, he should have sworn, that he verily believed the balance in his favour to be so much. Tidd. Pr. 21; 2 Ves. Sr. 489; 3 Atk. 501. Thirdly: the bill has no equity for this court; for if a balance is due the plaintiff, he may have a remedy at common law.

Mr. Rawle, for plaintiff.

Mr. Levy, for defendant

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY

THE COURT.

The affidavit is clearly defective. The plaintiff should swear positively to a debt or to his belief that a certain balance of account was due. The plaintiff being in court, and making this affidavit the court awarded a new writ; it appearing upon the examination of the plaintiff, who was sworn at the instance of the defendant, that-the particular account on which this suit was brought though laid before the arbitrators, had not been acted upon in any manner.

[See Case No. 5,366.]
Before the Third Division,

April 21, 1949

No. 53048.

#### Massachusetts Textile Company *v.*United States,

protests 54453-K and 76804-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank gnd set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.