alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit103.htm


     

    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      10.3

     

     

    
      FORM
        OF

      PERFORMANCE
        SHARE AWARD CANCELLATION AGREEMENT

       

      This
        Performance Share Award Cancellation Agreement (this “Agreement” is made as of
        January 28, 2008 between ___________________ (the “Recipient”) and KNBT Bancorp,
        Inc. (the “Company”). 

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Recipient was granted on [date],
        2006
        a performance share award (the “Award”) consisting of  _____shares of
        common stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock"), of the Company pursuant
        to the 2004 Recognition and Retention Plan and Trust Agreement (the
“Plan”); 

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        Company has entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and between
        National Penn Bancshares, Inc. (“National Penn”) and the Company dated as of
        September 6, 2007 (the “Merger Agreement”), whereby the Company will be merged
        with and into National Penn (the “Merger”); 

       

      WHEREAS,
the
        earning of the Award is subject to the achievement of specified performance
        targets of the Company with respect to the Company’s financial performance for
        the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Performance
        Targets”); 

       

      WHEREAS,
the
        Merger is expected to be completed on February 1, 2008; 

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        earning of the Award is not accelerated upon completion of the Merger;
        and 

       

      WHEREAS,
        in
        light of the pending Merger and the likelihood of achieving the Performance
        Targets, the parties to this Agreement desire that the Award be
        cancelled. 

       

      NOW,
        THEREFORE, IT
        IS AGREED, that the Award be and is hereby canceled as of the date
        hereof. The Recipient acknowledges that the Recipient shall have no claims
        or
        rights against the Company or National Penn under or in respect of the Award.
        The Recipient has surrendered to the Company the original of the Performance
        Share Award Agreement representing the Award.  Whether or not the
        Merger Agreement is terminated, this Agreement will remain in full force
        and
        effect. 

       

      IN
        WITNESS
        WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Agreement to be executed as of
        the date first written above. 

       

              KNBT
        BANCORP,
        INC. 

       

              By:      
        _________________________________ 

              Scott
        V.
        Fainor 

              President
        and Chief
        Executive Officer 

       

              By:      
        _________________________________ 

              Recipient
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2073 

To prohibit the permanent relocation of F–16 aircraft assigned to Eielson 

Air Force Base. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2012 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the permanent relocation of F–16 aircraft 

assigned to Eielson Air Force Base. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RELOCATION OF F–16 AIR4 CRAFT. 

5 The Secretary of the Air Force— 

6 (1) may not plan or execute the permanent re7 location of any F–16 aircraft assigned to Eielson Air 

8 Force Base as of the date of the enactment of this 

9 Act; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2073 IS

1 (2) shall ensure that the number of F–16 air2 craft assigned to Eielson Air Force Base as of Sep3 tember 30, 2012, equals or exceeds the number of 

4 F–16 aircraft assigned to Eielson Air Force Base as 

5 of October 1, 2011. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40345-40346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-2660-000]


Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1997, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., as 
Transmission Provider, requested to withdraw its filing of the Service 
Agreement for Non-firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service (Service 
Agreement) with The Washington Water Power Company (WWP) as 
Transmission Customer in Docket No. ER97-2660-000. A copy of the filing 
was served upon WWP.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 1, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the

[[Page 40346]]

Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19740 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2012258EN.01002801.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/28

---

Action brought on 21 June 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-64/12)

2012/C 258/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado Garcia-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to Grade AD 6 under the 2011 promotion procedure and for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 November 2011 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 6 under the 2011 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 November 2011 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 6 under the 2011 promotion procedure;

| — | Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 23 March 2011 rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 23 March 2011 rejecting the complaint;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 6 000 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 6 000 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;

ex aequo et bono

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
#### Paul Cerreta et al., Appellants, v New Jersey Transit Corporation et al., Respondents.

[700 NYS2d 11]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 9, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff Paul Cerreta attempted to board a train which had just begun to move out of Pennsylvania Station. As a result of *129physical contact with a conductor in the train’s open doorway he fell backwards and his foot caught in the space between the platform and the moving train. The IAS Court discounted plaintiffs’ evidence in opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion and concluded that plaintiff’s attempt to board the train was the sole proximate cause of this accident. Statements made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be accepted as true so long as such evidence is in admissible form *(Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v City of New York,*27 NY2d 410, 415; *Cochrane v Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp.,*219 AD2d 557, 559). Here, there is a sharp dispute as to whether the conductor negligently blocked entry and caused plaintiff to fall or whether plaintiff attempted to force his way onto the train and bounced off of the conductor. This disputed material issue of fact alone warrants denial of summary judgment, particularly where it bears upon foreseeability and causation *(see, Taft v New York City Tr. Auth.,*193 AD2d 503). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Imatron Inc.:

We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements (File
Nos. 333-11515,  333-6749,  333-3529, 333-647, 33-63123, 333-51963 and 333-87195
on Form S-3 and File Nos. 333-15081,  333-9989,  222-61179,  33-71786, 33-66992,
33-66952, 33-40391, 33-28662 and 33-26833, 333-94237, 333-94239 and 333-94245 on
Form S-8) of Imatron Inc. of our report dated February 14, 2000, relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheets of Imatron Inc. and  subsidiary as of December 31,
1999  and  1998,  and  the  related   consolidated   statements  of  operations,
shareholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, and the related  schedule,  which report appears
in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Imatron Inc.

                                                                       KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
March 27, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 3926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1998]


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


RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

    The meeting of the Railroad Retirement Board which was to be held 
on January 22, 1997, 9:00 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on the 8th 
floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60611, has been rescheduled to January 29, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. 
The agenda for this meeting was published at FR 1139 on January 8, 
1997.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public. The person to 
contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, Secretary to the 
Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.

    Dated: January 22, 1997.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-1998 Filed 1-23-97; 11:03 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1730 

To permit Mexican nationals who legally enter the United States with a 

valid Border Crossing Card through specific ports of entry in New 

Mexico to remain in southern New Mexico for up to 30 days. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit Mexican nationals who legally enter the United 

States with a valid Border Crossing Card through specific ports of entry in New Mexico to remain in southern 

New Mexico for up to 30 days. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Southern New Mexico 

5 Economic Development Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1730 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY ADMITTANCE OF MEXICAN NATIONALS 

2 WITH BORDER CROSSING CARDS. 

3 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit a 

4 national of Mexico, who enters the United States with a 

5 valid Border Crossing Card (as described in section 

6 212.1(c)(1)(i) of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

7 in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act), and 

8 who is admitted to the United States at the Columbus, 

9 Santa Teresa, or Antelope Wells port of entry in New 

10 Mexico, to remain in New Mexico (within 75 miles of the 

11 international border between the United States and Mex12 ico) for a period not to exceed 30 days. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### INQUIRY COMMISSION, Complainant, v. Cynthia Lynn LOSEY, Respondent.

No. 99-SC-321-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 17, 1999.

Cynthia Lynn Losey, Bellevue, KY, pro se.

*505ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION

The Inquiry Commission, pursuant to SCR 3.165(l)(a) and SCR 3.165(l)(b), seeks an order against Cynthia Lynn Losey for temporary suspension from the practice of law for two cases in which she has allegedly misappropriated client funds.

In 1998, a client hired attorney Losey to represent her in a child support matter and paid $570 for services. No action was taken on the case and the client filed a formal complaint with the Kentucky Bar Association in 1999.

In 1998, another client hired Losey to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf and paid the attorney a total of $675 in two payments. The client has not been able to contact the lawyer since before Christmas of 1998 and there is no record of a bankruptcy petition being filed. This client also filed a formal complaint.

On April 13, 1999, Chief Justice Lambert issued a confidential order to show cause within 20 days why she should not be temporarily suspended. No response of any kind has been received.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1) Cynthia Lynn Losey of Bellevue, Kentucky, is temporarily suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth, effective immediately and qhtil superseded by subsequent order.

2) Disciplinary proceedings against Lo-sey shall be initiated by the Inquiry Commission pursuant to SCR 3.160, unless already begun or unless Losey resigns under terms of disbarment.

3) Pursuant to SCR 3.165, Losey shall, within twenty days of the date of entry of this order, notify all clients in writing of her inability to continue to represent them and shall furnish copies of such letters of notice to the Director. Losey also shall immediately, to the extent reasonably possible, cancel and cease any advertising activities in which she is engaged. Failure to comply with this rule shall subject Lo-sey to a charge of contempt of court.

4)Cynthia Lynn Losey shall be responsible for all costs arising out of this proceeding.

All concur.

ENTERED: June 17,1999.

/s/ Joseph E. Lambert Chief Justice
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2126 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to extend and 

improve the milk income loss contract program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

to extend and improve the milk income loss contract 

program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘MILC Continuation 

5 Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 1506 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

8 Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8773) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (c)(3)— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2126 IS

1 (A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

2 at the end; 

3 (B) in subparagraph (B)— 

4 (i) by striking ‘‘August 31, 2012’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2013’’; and 

6 (ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting 

7 a period; and 

8 (C) by striking subparagraph (C); 

9 (2) in subsection (d)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘August 

11 31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

12 2013’’; 

13 (B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

14 (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

15 paragraph (2); 

16 (3) in subsection (e)(2)(A)— 

17 (A) in clause (i), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the 

18 end; 

19 (B) in clause (ii)— 

20 (i) by striking ‘‘August 31, 2012’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2013’’; and 

22 (ii) by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting 

23 a period; and 

24 (C) by striking clause (iii); and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2126 IS

1 (4) in subsections (g) and (h)(1), by striking 

2 ‘‘2012’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
January 23, 1939

No. 40509.

Suit 4146.

#### Rosenbaum *Grain Corp. et al.*v. *United States.*

T. D. 49205 affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1831 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1831

   To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the 
prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain 
                     exemption under Regulation D.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 2011

   Mr. Thune introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the 
prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain 
                     exemption under Regulation D.

    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 ``Access to Capital for Job Creators 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF EXEMPTION.

    (a) Removal of Restriction.--Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(2)) is amended by inserting before the period at 
the end the following: ``, whether or not such transactions involve 
general solicitation or general advertising''.
    (b) Modification of Rules.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall 
revise its rules issued in section 230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal 
Regulations, to provide that the prohibition against general 
solicitation or general advertising contained in section 230.502(c) of 
such title shall not apply to offers and sales of securities made 
pursuant to section 230.506, provided that all purchasers of the 
securities are accredited investors. Such rules shall require the 
issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the 
securities are accredited investors, using such methods as determined 
by the Commission.
                                 <all>
```
Contact Us
- You are here:  EPA Home 
- NSCEP 
- Document Display 
Document DisplayPage (5 of 30)                                                                                                              Include current hits                         Document key fieldspubnumber 600R96056title DataQualityObjectivesDecisionErrorFeasibilityTrials             (DQO/DEFT): User'sGuide,             Version 4.0 pages 30 pubyear 1996 provider NSCEP access both origin hardcopy author publisher subject abstract Document propertiesFile30003GVV.txtRank1 of 1, sorted on Hitdensity (descending)Page5 of 30Hitdensity3.61Hits243Size68880 bytes ModifiedMonday, June 15, 2009 2:41:38 PMIndex 1995 Thru 1999Short URL                 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30003GVV.txtDocument delivery           optionsDescribe the error you saw:E-mail Address(Highly Recommended)When you have finished entering your information,       click the Submit Error button. Document key fieldspubnumber 600R96056title DataQualityObjectivesDecisionErrorFeasibilityTrials             (DQO/DEFT): User'sGuide,             Version 4.0 pages 30 pubyear 1996 provider NSCEP access both origin hardcopy author publisher subject abstract Document propertiesFile          30003GVV.txtRank          1 of 1, sorted on Hitdensity (descending)Page          5 of 30Hitdensity          3.61Hits          243Size          68880 bytes Modified          Monday, June 15, 2009 2:41:38 PMIndex           1995 Thru 1999Short URL http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30003GVV.txtPage (5 of 30)              of 30 Icon GuideHelpLocal Navigation- EPA Home 
- Privacy and Security   Notice 
- Contact Us
#### Winter Wolff & Co. *v.*United States

No. 5974.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 28, 1939.

Entry No. 819711.

(Decided January 11, 1944)

*Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the merchandise represented by the items marked A and initialed *FCG*by Examiner *F. C. Guerriero*covered by the appeal to reappraisement enumerated above, consists of aluminum foil exported from Switzerland, and that as to the items so marked the merchandise and the issues involved in the reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *United States*v. *New England Foil Corp.,*Reap. Dec. 5856; that such or similar merchandise was at or about the time of exportation of the merchandise covered by this stipulation sold and freely offered for sale in the principal markets of Switzerland to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade, packed ready for shipment, in the usual wholesale quantities, for exportation to the United States, at the invoice value less 4)4%, less freight of $21.80, less duty at 20 per centum ad valorem.

> It is further stipulated that the record in *United States*v. *New England Foil Corp.,*Reap. Dec. 5856, be incorporated herein and that the appeal covered hereby is submitted on this stipulation.

> That the instant appeal to reappraisement is abandoned as to all other merchandise.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that valuó is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise rerpesented by the items marked A and initialed FCG by Examiner F. C. Guerriero, and that such value is the invoice value, less *4}{*per centum, less freight of $21.80, less duty at 20 per centum ad valorem, there being no foreign value.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-117757, 333-117754, 333-48084, 333-83995) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-132504) and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated February 28, 2008, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Time Warner Telecom Inc., and internal control over financial reporting of Time Warner Telecom Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

 

Denver, Colorado 

February 28, 2008