alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.12
 2010
Coventry Health Care, Inc.
Executive Management Incentive Plan
 Section 1. Purpose
  Section 2. Definitions
 (a)
    
    Base Salary shall mean a Participants annualized base salary.(b)
    
    Code shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it may be amended from time to time
and any proposed, temporary or final Treasury Regulations.(c)
    
    Committee shall mean the Compensation and Benefits Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Company. Each member of the Committee shall be an outside director within the meaning
of Section 162(m) of the Code.(d)
    
    Company shall mean Coventry Health Care, Inc. and any of its subsidiaries or affiliates,
whether established now or in the future.(e)
    
    Incentive Awards shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4 herein.(f)
    
    Participants shall mean the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and any other executive officer
of the Company designated by the Committee, as provided for herein, to participate with
respect to a Performance Period in the Plan.(g)
    
    Performance Period shall mean each consecutive twelve-month period commencing on January 1
of each year during the term of this plan and coinciding with the Companys fiscal year.(h)
    
    Performance Measurement shall mean one or more pre-established, objective financial metrics
as selected by the Committee and defined in Section 4 herein.(i)
    
    Performance Thresholdshall mean a specified, pre-established level of achievement of one
of the Companys Performance Measurements.(j)
    
    Plan shall mean the Coventry Health Care Inc., Executive Management Incentive Plan.(k)
    
    Target Award shall mean a percentage of Base Salary, which may be greater or less than
100%, as determined by the Committee with respect to each Performance Period.
 Section 3. Administration




---



##### 



Section 4. Awards
 Determination of Target Award and Eligible Employees. th
 ) Incentive Awards.
 Pre-Established Formula.
 (c) Performance Measurement
 
    
    Net Earnings Per Share
    
    Revenue Growth
    
    Operating Earnings
    
    Membership Growth
    
    Return on Equity
    
    Earnings Growth
 Performance Measurement Weighting .
 Section 5. General Provisions
 Discretionary Reduction.
 C ontinued Employment.
 Tax Withholding.
 ( No Rights to Awards.
 No Limit on Other Compensation Arrangements.
 Term .
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of CEO 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 of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Keith G. Larsen Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Keith G. LarsenKeith
      G. Larsen,Chief
      Executive OfficerMay
      5, 2009








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
U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 44281.

#### Protests 548809-G, etc., of Heiray Import 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 protests were therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**
     I, Larry V. Friend, the Chief Financial Officer of Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. andWerner Holding Co. (DE), Inc. (the “Co-registrants”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Co-registrants;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Co-registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
      4. The Co-registrants’ other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Co-registrants and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Co-registrants, including their consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Co-registrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Co-registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Co-registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCo-registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Co-registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The Co-registrants’ other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Co-registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Co-registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Co-registrants’ ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Co-registrants’ internal controls over financial reporting.         WERNER HOLDING CO. (PA), INC.       Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ LARRY V. FRIEND         Chief Financial Officer         WERNER HOLDING CO. (DE), INC.       Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ LARRY V. FRIEND         Chief Financial Officer
86
No. 42055.

#### Protest 974555-G of Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the record presented the protest was sustained as to the chests or outer coverings of tea designated on the invoice as “Opal Brand” and classified at 33% percent under paragraph 412 and as “Aircraft Brand” classified at 5 cents per pound and 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1405. The protest was overruled as to all other items.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                CERTIFICATION 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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christine R. Larson, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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:  December 22, 2004

                                            /S/ Christine R. Larson
                                            -----------------------
                                            Christine R. Larson
                                            Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
     and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Southern de México, S.A.
de C.V. (the registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
    /s/ José Guillermo Zozaya DelanoJosé Guillermo Zozaya DelanoPresident and Executive Representative
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 37 

Expressing the sense of Congress with regard to pardoning Border Patrol 

agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Mr. TANCREDO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress with regard to pardoning 

Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. 

Whereas Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose 

Compean protect America’s border; 

Whereas the charges brought against Agents Ramos and 

Compean are unprecedented and ill-conceived; 

Whereas the Government’s case is almost solely reliant on the 

testimony of Aldrete—an illegal alien drug smuggler—a 

man committed to hurting America’s youth by increasing 

the availability of drugs; 

Whereas the Department of Justice prioritized finding 

Aldrete and offering him immunity from his actions; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 37 IH 

Whereas the Department of Justice opposed allowing Agents 

Ramos and Compean to remain free on bail while the appeals process moves forward; and 

Whereas agents Ramos and Compean have reported to Federal prison: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 

3 President should swiftly and unconditionally pardon 

4 Agents Ramos and Compean. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# C_2016419EN.01004201.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/42

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Flowil International Lighting v EUIPO — Lorimod Prod Com (Silvania Food)

(Case T-430/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Silvania Food - Earlier EU word marks SYLVANIA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 419/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Lorimod Prod Com, Srl (Simleul Silvaniei, Romania)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2015 (Case R 616/2014-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Flowil International Lighting (Holding) and SC Lorimod Prod Com.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
34020.

#### GIBSON v. DeKALB COUNTY.

*All the Justices concur, except Undercofler, P. J., and Hill, J., who dissent.*

Ordered September 15, 1978.

Hill, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent from the denial of certiorari.

Plaintiffs son, eleven years old, was at a pool owned and operated by DeKalb County. The boy was charged and paid a twenty-five cents admission fee for use of the pool facilities. When a child reported to a lifeguard that he had felt a body under the water, two lifeguards cleared the pool of some 150 children. The visibility in the water in the pool was only several inches allegedly as a result of dirt which entered the pool from holes in the walls and a faulty filtering system. This condition, which the *204lifeguards had reported to their supervisor on numerous occasions, prevented them from being able to see children swimming under water or lying on the bottom of the pool.

The two lifeguards proceeded to search the pool by repeatedly diving to the bottom and feeling around in the pool with their hands. They employed this procedure at least 7 times until the boy’s body was found.

Although mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was attempted, the boy died from drowning. One of the lifeguards expressed the opinion that they could have saved the boy if the water had been clear.

In my view the doctrine of sovereign immunity invoked here deprives the plaintiff or her deceased son of damages for his life without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A father is deprived of his deceased son’s services (a common law right of property) without due process under similar circumstances. The provisions relied upon by the Court of Appeals (Code §§ 2-3401, 23-1502) cannot withstand federal constitutional attack and I would therefore abolish sovereign immunity as being unconstitutional. See *Reid v. Gwinnett County,*242 Ga. 88. See also the dissent in *Miree v. United States,*242 Ga. 126.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael MILLER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 73040.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 6, 1998.

Raymond J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before SIMON, P.J., and CRANE and MOONEY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Michael Miller appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered following his jury conviction for forgery in violation of Section 570.090, RSMo 1994, on which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to 15 years imprisonment. He seeks plain error review of the trial court’s admission of alleged “other crimes” evidence to which no objection was made.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
99-0648 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Melissa BORDELON v. Charles Michael BORDELON.

No. 99-C-0648.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Bordelon, Melissa; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Rapides 9th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 17402; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1444

Denied.

KIMBALL, J. would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J. not on panel.
#### Timothy Eric BUFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony BELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-17208.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*805Timothy Eric Buford, Fairfield, CA, pro se.

David A. Carrasco Fax, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC) Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

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). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Eric Buford appeals pro se summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his civil rights action, alleging that his former parole agent illegally searched his residence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because, although Buford alleged generally that defendant improperly searched his house on two occasions in 1998, he failed to offer any evidence of what actually happened when the alleged searches were conducted. *See id.*(“If a nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, he must establish each element of his claim with significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Buford’s requests for additional discovery because he failed to offer facts showing that evidence existed that would prevent summary judgment. *See Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp.,*113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir.1996).

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Buford’s request for appointment of counsel. *See Rand v. Rowland,*113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1997).

Buford’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

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.
Before the Second Division,

July 29, 1938

No. 39117.

#### Protest 563442-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of c'ellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
### Quality of the water supplies of Kansas, with a preliminary report on stream pollution by mine waters in southeastern Kansas

By: Horatio Newton ParkerE.H.S. Bailey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp273

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO EMBRAYAGES, Appellants

v.

SCHAEFFLER TECHNOLOG IES AG & CO. KG, Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2018

- 1196, 2018

- 1228

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trad emark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 00502.

_____________________ _

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT C ARTER M ATTSON , Oblon LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellants. Also represented by T IA F ENTON , L ISA M ANDRUSIAK , P HILIPPE J.C. S IGNORE

.

J USTIN J. O LIVER , Venable LLP, Washington, DC, argued for cross

- appellant. Also represented by S TEPHEN K

AI

- TUNG Y AM

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R EYNA , S CHALL , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
3DR SOLO QUADCOPTER 

Specs:

Cameras: Compatible with GoPro® HERO3, 3+ and 4; optimized for HERO3+ and 4 

Streaming video quality: 720p 

Flight time: 25 minutes; 20 minutes with payload* 

Range: .5 miles** (.8 km) 

Max speed: 55 mph (89 km/h) 

Max ascent speed: 10 m/s in stabilize mode; 5 m/s in “fly” mode 

Max descent speed: ditto 

Max payload: 420 g 

Max altitude: 400 ft per FAA regulation, user adjustable (122 m) 

Motors: 880 kV 

Propellers: 10′′ diameter 4.5′′ pitch self-tightening (24 cm diameter 144 cm pitch); glass-reinforced nylon 

Autopilot: Pixhawk 2 

Software: APM:Copter 

Communication: 3DR Link secure WiFi network 

Frequency: 2.4 GHz 

Weight: 3.3 lbs. (1.5 kg) / 3.9 lbs. (1.8 kg) with GoPro® and Solo Gimbal 

Dimensions: 10 in. tall (25 cm), 18 in. (46 cm) motor-to-motor 

Flight battery: Lithium polymer 5200 mAh 14.8 Vdc 

Battery charge time: ~1.5 hours 

Controller battery: 2600 mAh 7.2 Vdc rechargeable lithium ion 

App requirements: iOS 8.0 or later / Android 4.3 or later 

*Flight time varies with payload, wind conditions, elevation, temperature, humidity, flying style and pilot skill. Listed flight time 

applies to elevations less than 2,000 ft above sea level. 

**Depending on environmental conditions; controller is expandable, allowing us or third parties to amp up the range in the 

future. 

Solo Smart Battery:

Rechargeable lithium polymer (Li-Po) 

5200 mAh 

14.8 Vdc 

Weight: 1 lb. (.5 kg)