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

AMENDMENT TO THE
HALLIBURTON COMPANY PERFORMANCE UNIT PROGRAM
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2019)


         WHEREAS, Halliburton Company (the “Company”) has adopted and maintains the Halliburton Company Performance Unit Program, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2019 (the “Plan”) to reward management and other key employees of the Company;


        WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of the Company has the authority pursuant to Article X of the Plan to amend the Plan;


WHEREAS, the Committee has determined that in order to further the purposes of the Plan it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan in the form of this amendment (the “Amendment”) to expressly document and clarify the scope of the discretion of the Committee in certain respects; 


            NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2020, as follows:


1.Section 5.5 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end of such paragraph as follows:


a.“In addition, the Committee retains the authority to make such adjustments to the amount of the Award as it determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, to be appropriate, and such adjusted amount shall constitute the Award for purposes of Section 5.3.”


2.Section 7.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end of such paragraph as follows:


a.“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee, in its sole and absolute discretion, may provide that a Participant who is subject to mandatory retirement under the policies of the Company, shall be entitled to the full amount of the Award for each applicable Performance Cycle that is ongoing at the time of retirement, as determined without proration, which shall be paid in accordance with the provisions in Section 6.1.”


3.All other provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 8837)

#### Colonia, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 724498, etc.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that

> 1. The appeals to reappraisement set forth on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consist of importations of perfumery, toilet water, cosmetics and similar merchandise exported from Western Germany;

> 2. That merchandise such or similar to the merchandise specified in the attached schedule was not on the dates of exportation to the United States freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the markets of Western Germany, the country of exportation, either for home consumption or for exportation to the United States; that on said dates of exportation such merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets for domestic consumption in the United States; and that the Appraiser has determined that neither a foreign value, nor an export value nor a United States value as set forth in Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 can be satisfactorily ascertained;

> 3. That the cost of materials and of fabrication, manipulation or other process employed in producing such or similar merchandise at time proceeding the dates of exportation of the merchandise specified in the attached schedule, which would ordinarily permit the manufacture of said merchandise in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (which are not less than 10 *%*of the above costs) plus an addition for profit (which profit is not less than 8 % of all of the foregoing costs and expenses) equal to the profit which ordinarily is added by manufacturers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind, plus the cost of all coverings of whatever nature, and other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the specified merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States (cost of production as set forth in said Section 402 (f) is the appraised values less the addition for “cost of packing”;

> 4. That the additions for the item of “cost of packing” are not parts of the cost of production as set forth in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930;

> 5. That the reappraisement appeals set forth in the attached schedule are submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper *689basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions for “cost of packing.”

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. EL07-30-000] 

On January 9, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Complaint in the above-docketed proceeding. The notice established a period for filing protests or motions to intervene in response to this complaint. 

By this notice, the date for filing motions to intervene or protests is shortened to and including January 22, 2007. 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-791 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 48721.

#### Protests 964084-G, etc., of Westergaard Berg-Johnsen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269 the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, allowing 21⁄2 percent in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  BALANCE  SHEET AND  STATEMENT OF  OPERATIONS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            9-MOS
<CASH>                                                     260
<SECURITIES>                                               540
<RECEIVABLES>                                             1074
<ALLOWANCES>                                                46
<INVENTORY>                                                824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          2972
<PP&E>                                                    1064
<DEPRECIATION>                                             955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            3143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      620
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                  2937
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              3143
<SALES>                                                   3805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3805
<CGS>                                                     1404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          2247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (21)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            175
<INCOME-TAX>                                                16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        158
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                               158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .01
        

</TABLE>
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 18, 2014

v No. 317605 Wayne Circuit Court JAMES WILLIAM GORE, LC No. 12-008599-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’C ONNELL , P.J., and B ORRELLO and G LEICHER , JJ.

O’C ONNELL
, P.J. ( concurring in result only ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
EXHIBIT 32

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



In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Consumers Financial
Corporation  (the  "Company")  for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald  J.  Hommel,  Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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,  that:

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

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




Date  August 18, 2003                     By  /S/ Donald  J.  Hommel
      ---------------                         ----------------------
                                                Donald J. Hommel
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes  of  Section  18  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Consumers  Financial Corporation and will be retained by Consumers
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission of
its  staff  upon  request.


<PAGE>
-------------**--~·** ·- --**--·-~-** ---.-

Writ uf M:wdamus Denied, Opinion issued September 12, 21H 2



### In The 

## <!rourt of Appeals**llfiftl~** 

## IDistrict of UJcxas at IDallas No. 05-12-01226-CV IN RE DAVID A. SCHUM, Relator Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial DistrictCourt Dallas County,Texas Trial CourtCause No. DF-05-9233-Y



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justice Morris, Richter, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Richter In this original mandamus proceeding, relatorcontends the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the case transferred from Dallas County, Texas to DuPage County, Illinois. The facts and circumstances ofthe case are known to theparties and we do not recite them herein. Based on the record before the Court, weconclude relatorhas notshown he is entitled to the reliefrequested. 

### See In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); 

### Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ ofmandamus.

121226F.P05
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

Order 

February 4, 2011

141624

141629

TRENDA JONES, Successor Personal

Representative and Co-Personal

Representative, BOOKER T. JONES,

Co-Personal Representative, and 

MARGARET A. JONES, Co-Personal

Representative, of the Estate of JAMAR

CORTEZ JONES,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 141624

COA: 288710

Wayne CC: 03-327528-NH

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER and 

SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and

DANNY F. WATSON, M.D., and 

WILLIAM M. LEUCHTER, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

TRENDA JONES, Successor Personal

Representative and Co-Personal

Representative, BOOKER T. JONES,

Co-Personal Representative, and 

MARGARET A. JONES, Co-Personal

Representative, of the Estate of JAMAR

CORTEZ JONES,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 141629

COA: 288710

Wayne CC: 03-327528-NH

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER and 

SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and

DANNY F. WATSON, M.D., and 

WILLIAM M. LEUCHTER, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 4, 2011

d0201

2

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the May 20, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The parties 

shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether the probability of injury is a 

proper consideration in determining proximate causation, and (2) whether partial 

summary disposition may be granted to the plaintiff with regard to proximate causation 

where the negligence of the defendant has not been established. 

The Michigan Association for Justice and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, 

Inc. are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30646-30647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13041]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in the membership of the Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board (CSB).

DATES: Effective May 26, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lau, Human Resources Director, 
(202) 261-7600.

[[Page 30647]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management, a performance review board (PRB). The PRB reviews 
initial performance ratings of members of the Senior Executive Service 
(SES) and makes recommendations as to final annual performance ratings 
for senior executives. Because the CSB is a small independent Federal 
agency, the SES members of the CSB's PRB are drawn from other Federal 
agencies.
    The Chairperson of the CSB has appointed the following individual 
to the CSB Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board:
    PRB Member--Mary Johnson, General Counsel, National Mediation 
Board.
    Ms. Johnson replaces Gary L. Halbert (previously General Counsel, 
National Transportation Safety Board). The service of Mr. Halbert on 
the PRB has come to a close. His appointment was originally announced 
in the Federal Register of January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1028).
    William B. Wark (CSB Board Member) continues to serve as the Chair 
of the PRB, as announced in the Federal Register of November 15, 2007 
(72 FR 64192). David Capozzi (Executive Director, United States Access 
Board) continues to serve as a Member of the PRB, as announced in the 
Federal Register of December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74138).
    This notice is published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: May 17, 2011.
Rafael Moure-Eraso,
Chairperson.
[FR Doc. 2011-13041 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
```
No. 50673.

#### Protests 66342-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

*321Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016098EN.01006201.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/62

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2016 — Darchy v Commission

(Case F-47/15) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Children of the applicant’s spouse - Payment with retroactive effect))

(2016/C 098/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Pierre Darchy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to uphold the application for the retroactive grant of the dependent child allowance in respect of the two children of the applicant’s spouse, who live at her home every second week, with effect from the date of their marriage and payment of compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Darchy to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Darchy to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 35.

1

---
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1.   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                                           |                                    |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                                           |
|                             |                                                      |                               |
| Date:              September 12, 2007 | By:                                                  | /s/ Rainer              Bosselmann |
|                                  | Rainer              Bosselmann                                 |
|                                  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive              Officer |

----
No. 44225.

#### Protest 834616—G of Katz Berk Hat Body Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.