alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

**VeecoInstruments Inc.**

**2010Management Bonus Plan**

**January 22,2010**

 

**Management Incentive Bonus:  equal to 75% of a participant’s total targetbonus**

·                  Primary Measure:  EBITA(Corporate, Group or Business Unit (“BU”) target, as set by the CompensationCommittee)

·                  Secondary Measures (Corporate, Group or BU target, as set by theCompensation Committee):

·                  Revenue Growth

·                  Bookings

·                  Individual Performance

 

Primary Measure

·                  Creates an initial funding pool based on EBITAperformance vs. target

·                  Pool funding willrange from 50% of target for minimum performance to 100% of target for targetperformance and 200% of target for maximum performance.  The minimum, target and maximumperformance levels for each BU are as set by the Compensation Committee.

·                  No fundingwill be earned for performance below minimum.

·                  The initial funding calculation is capped at 100%, subject to meeting aperformance hurdle expressed as EBITA as a % of Revenue.

 

Secondary Measures

·                  The initial funding pool will be divided into threeelements (revenue growth, bookings and individual performance) based on theweight assigned to each element, as set by the Compensation Committee for eachBU.

·                  Actual bonus awards are based on revenue growth,bookings and individual performance, each as compared to targets, calculatedindependently and added together.

·                  Awards willrange from 70% of target for minimum performance to 100% for target performanceand 150% for maximum performance.  Noawards will be earned for performance below minimum.

·                  Awards for individual performance will be granted froma fixed budget for each BU and will range from 0% to 150%; the weight forindividual performance is set at 40% for all participants.

 

**Management Profit Sharing:  equal to 25% of a participant’s total targetbonus**

·                  Earned quarterly when total Veeco EBITA is at least 5% of revenue inaccordance with the following schedule:

 

| **If Quarterly Corporate  EBITA (as a % of  revenue) is:** | ** ** | **The %  of EBITA  available to Profit  Sharing pool is:** |
|------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Less than 5%                                               |       | 0%                                                         |
| > 5%                                                    |       | 1.4%                                                       |

 

**EBITA Cap**

·                  With certain exceptions, approved by the Compensation Committee,aggregate bonus awards for all participants within a BU are capped at 15% ofthat BU’s EBITA.

 

Amounts in respect of theprofit sharing portion of the Plan, if earned, would be paid following the endof each quarter of 2010.  Amounts inrespect of the annual bonus portion of the Plan, if earned, would be paidduring the first two and a half months of 2011.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  263,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,981)
<INVENTORY>                                    124,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               450,813
<PP&E>                                         783,338
<DEPRECIATION>                               (331,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,264,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207,716
<BONDS>                                        437,836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,764
<OTHER-SE>                                     485,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,264,040
<SALES>                                        612,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               612,468
<CGS>                                          402,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  536,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,598
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 14

                             BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C.

Code of Ethics for the President, Chief Financial Officer, Controller and other
                      persons performing similar functions
             (As required by Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act)


This Code of Ethics applies to the President, the Chief Financial Officer, the
Controller, and other persons performing similar functions for BNP U.S. Funding
L.L.C. (the "Firm"). The purpose of this Code of Ethics is to promote honest and
ethical conduct, particularly in relation to the maintenance of the Firm's
financial books and records and the preparation of financial statements. This
Code of Ethics supplements other codes of conduct of the Firm (or its
affiliates) that may be applicable from time to time.

A finance professional is expected to:

o    Act with honesty and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical
     handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and
     professional relationships;

o    Disclose to the Board of Directors or the Corporate Secretary any material
     transaction or relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise
     to a conflict of interest;

o    Assist in the providing of full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable
     disclosure in reports and documents that the Firm files with, or submits
     to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and in other public
     communications made by the Firm;

o    Comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations of federal,
     state and local governments and other appropriate regulatory agencies;

o    Promptly report to the Board of Directors or Corporate Secretary any
     violation of this Code of Ethics or other matters that might compromise the
     integrity of the Firm's financial statements; and

o    Consult promptly with the Board of Directors should such professional
     violate this Code of Ethics.



The Firm will take all necessary steps to enforce this Code of Ethics, and
violations thereof may result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.
Violations of this Code of Ethics may also constitute violations of law and may
subject the Firm and finance professionals to criminal or civil penalties.
Questions regarding the application of this Code of Ethics should be promptly
addressed to the Corporate Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT INCLUDED IN ITS FIRST QUARTER REPORT TO
SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,629,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              179,910,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,368,000)
<INVENTORY>                                169,414,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           374,769,000
<PP&E>                                     153,341,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (68,766,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             522,230,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      217,258,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   155,447,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 135,991,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               522,230,000
<SALES>                                    196,974,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           197,211,000
<CGS>                                      129,661,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              158,255,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,378,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             581,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             29,997,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,268,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,729,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,729,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.30
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.
                             -----------------------

                       Computation of net income per share
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

                                                             Twelve-month
                                                             period ended
                                                           December 31, 1999
                                                           -----------------

Net Income                                                    $   57,685
Less:  Preferred Securities Dividend
Net Income Applicable to Common Securities                        38,690
                                                               ---------
                                                              $   18,995
                                                               =========
Securities:
Weighted Average Number of Common Securities                      53,011
                                                               =========
Outstanding

Net Income per Common Security                                $   358.33
                                                               =========
January 8, 1941

No. 45195.

Suit 4252.

#### United *States*v. *E. E. Holler.*

Abstract 40807 reversed. C. A. D. 133.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,427
<PP&E>                                          85,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   679
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Best & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6807.

Entry Nos. 700849; 3727.

Invoices dated Edinburgh, Scotland, May 30, 1946, etc.

Certified May 31, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 2, 1946, etc., and at Chicago, Ill., March 25, 1942.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts established that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions, made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sky-mobi Limited (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Tao Song, 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, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: June 29, 2012



|    |  |                      |  |                        
|--- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael Tao Song
|    |  |                     
|    |  | Name:                |  | Michael Tao Song       
|    |  | Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### In re: Balbir Singh TULI, Debtor, Balbir Singh Tuli, Appellant, v. Sprecher + Schuh Group; et al., Appellees.

No. 04-15869.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Balbir Singh Tuli, Scottsdale, AZ, for Appellant.

Scott B. Cohen, Esq., Scottsdale, AZ, Adam B. Nach, Esq., Lane & Nach, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Appellees.

*850Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Balbir Singh Tuli appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Tuli’s motion to treat his prior motions to renew and reinstate as motions to withdraw the reference to district court or in the alternative to transfer his case to a district court in another state. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We treat the denial of Tuli’s motion as a denial of reconsideration and review for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s decision.1*See Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner),*161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that this court reviews the bankruptcy court’s orders independently of the BAP’s decision). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it declined to reopen adversary proceedings it had dismissed over five years earlier for failure to prosecute, because Tuli demonstrated no extraordinary circumstances and did not explain or excuse his own delays and failure to file his action in another forum. *See Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp.,*486 U.S. 847, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (“[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) ] should only be applied in ‘extraordinary circumstances’ ”); *United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,*984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (noting that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is unavailable where “the party seeking reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses”) (internal citations omitted).

Tuli’s contention regarding abstention is effectively foreclosed by our decision in his prior appeal. *See Tuli v. Sprecher Energie A.G. (In re Tuli),*21 Fed. Appx. 567, 569 (9th Cir.2001).

Tuli’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Unless the bankruptcy court vacates its dismissal, no adversary proceeding exists for transfer or withdrawal of reference.
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

######  Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

# AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Program notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Energy Technology Laboratory, on behalf of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Building                               ( print page 26086)                            Technologies Program, intends to issue a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to select and fund Energy-Efficient Building Technology Application Centers. This FOA is expected to be issued on or about May 15, 2007. The goal of this funding opportunity is to establish geographically and climatically diverse Energy-Efficient Building Technology Application Centers. This goal supports the EERE Strategic Plan to increase the energy efficiency of the Nation's buildings and the Building Technology Program's Technology Validation and Market Introduction activity goal of accelerating the widespread market adoption of energy-efficient building technologies and practices. It also encourages demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies through education and outreach to building and industry professionals, and other individuals and organizations with an interest in efficient energy use.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        James Rannels, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Program Office EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-8070, E-mail:                         *James.Rannels@ee.doe.gov.*

                        C. Edward Christy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, M/S E-02, Morgantown, WV 26507, (304) 285-4604, E-mail:                         *Eddie.Christy@netl.doe.gov.*

Dated: May 2, 2007. 

C. Edward Christy, 

Director, Building and Industrial Technologies Division.

 [FR Doc. E7-8788 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Amrik SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 04-71804.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

George T. Heridis, Esq., RAI & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Edward H. Kubo, Jr., Rachel S. Moriyama, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Amrik Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, *see Al Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

*769Singh testified inconsistently regarding the conditions police placed on his return home after he was in hiding. As this inconsistency goes to the heart of Singh’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (upholding adverse credibility determination where petitioner was inconsistent as to number of arrests). Accordingly, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Aschroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s CAT claim, as he failed to raise it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.