alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 









Exhibit 10.1



          EXECUTIVE BONUSES 2008


          There are two 2008 corporate objectives




	 	1)	 	Obtain milnacipran NDA approval (70%)






	 	2)	 	Major corporate event, such as an in-license or product acquisition. (30%)




          Specific weighting percentages are assigned to each of the objectives – these are noted in
parenthetical after each objective. The bonus payable is equal to the weighting percentage
multiplied by the ‘target bonus’ amount as defined below. The bonus is payable upon achievement of
either objective. Note that whether or not a particular transaction qualifies as a ‘major
corporate event’ is left to the discretion of the Compensation Committee.


Payments under the 2008 Bonus Plan, if any, are contingent upon the Company’s achievement of
certain corporate objectives described above, and the relevant officers’ continued employment with
the Company on the date of payment.





The ‘Target Bonus’ amounts are defined as:


For Srinivas Rao, Mike Gendreau, Denise Wheeler:


25% x annual base salary*




 




* For Denise Wheeler, prorated to reflect her part-time status


For Sabrina Johnson


35% x annual base salary


For Jay Kranzler:


66 2/3% x annual base salary




          The bonus amounts are calculated based on annual base salaries as of the earlier of the
achievement of the objective or December 31, 2008.




          Example to illustrate bonus calculation formula:




          Assuming objective 1 is met, the bonus to Jay Kranzler would be 70% x 66 2/3% x annual
base salary.




          Assuming objective 2 is met, the bonus to Jay Kranzler would be 30% x 66 2/3% x annual
base salary.




          Assuming objectives 1 and 2 are met, the bonus to Jay Kranzler would be 100% x 66 2/3%
x annual base salary.
Before the Third Division,

October 27, 1943

No. 48930.

#### Protests 965582-G, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Quong Lee & Co.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 23, C. D. 716). The record in that case was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained to this extent.
Guam Msitors Bureau 

Solbision Hisiian (iuahan 

"irlilU! ^ 

February 24, 2010 ACTIO N 

JL 

SI 0-100304-053 

CONTROL NO The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation — 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

I am writing to you on behalf of the Guam Visitors Bureau (GVB) in support of Continental 

Micronesia's application to provide daily nonstop service between Guam and Tokyo's Haneda 

International Airport, which is scheduled to begin later this year. This opportunity is made possible 

from your success in securing an open skies agreement with Japan. 

The GVB is a public, non-stock private corporation with a dues paying membership of nearly 400 

individuals and businesses in our community of 175,000. 

Tourism is the most important sector of Guam's economy, representing more than 35% of the island's 

Gross Island Product and some $1.2 billion in annual revenues. Japanese tourists make up 75% of 

Guam's 1.2 million annual visitors and is the island's most important market. Each Japanese visitor 

creates $120 in tax receipts, generates $170 in direct wages paid to Guam workers, and $113 in 

income to businesses that do not directly "touch" that visitor. 

From a regional perspective, approval of Continental's application will also benefit more than 200,000 

residents living in Micronesia, a group of U.S. affiliated islands occupying an ocean area the footprint 

equivalent of the lower 48 states, and whose economies are also highly dependent on tourism. The 

ability of U.S. carriers to compete with Japanese airlines is very important to our island communities, 

and Continental Micronesia is the right choice for new Haneda service because it is the only carrier 

operating a hub on Guam that connects the islands of Micronesia to Japan. 

The Tokyo area make up about 50% of all Japanese visitors to Guam, and Haneda is the most 

convenient gateway, saving passengers an hour's travel to Narita. Easier access to Guam from 

Haneda is of special benefit to families with young children, the elderly, and those coming to the 

island for weddings, which now number about 25% of all foreign overseas Japanese weddings and a 

very strategic market in terms of volume and yield. 

GUAM 
Guam Msitors Bureau 

Sctbisioii P)isiiaii (iualia n 

Secretary Ray LaHood 

February 24, 2010 

Re: Tokyo's Haneda International Airport 

Page 2 

For Guam and Micronesia to sustain their tourism industry, it is vital that air connectivity to their most 

important market afford convenience, healthy competition, and consumer choice. Direct air service to 

Guam from Haneda provides the air service that enhances the financial security of Guam and the 

region's tourism industry at a time when a strong regional economy js needed to pay for infrastructure 

and other improvements associated with the relocation to Guam of 8,000 marines in Okinawa, their 

families, and support personnel. 

Sincerely, 

/ 

David*B. Typi^ 

Chairman 

GUAM
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Cindy B. TaylorName:
    Cindy B. TaylorDate:
    April 29, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.02
 
 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 Quarterly Report of PDF Solutions, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010 (“the Report”), I, Joy E. Leo, EVP, Chief Administration Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer, 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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOY E. LEOJoy E. Leo

EVP, Chief Administration Officer and

Acting Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
 Date: November 5, 2010
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

 

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Kin Shek Leung, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 Annual Report; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report. 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 10, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2087 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2087

 To clarify the meaning of ``produced'' for purposes of limitations on 
the procurement by the Department of Defense of specialty metals within 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2012

   Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mrs. 
  Gillibrand, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Casey, and Mrs. Hagan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the meaning of ``produced'' for purposes of limitations on 
the procurement by the Department of Defense of specialty metals within 
                           the United States.

    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 ``United States Steel and Security Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL DEFINITION RELATING TO PRODUCTION OF SPECIALTY 
              METALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 2533b(m) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(11) The term `produced', as used in subsections (a) and 
        (b), means melted, or processed in a manner that results in 
        physical or chemical property changes that are the equivalent 
        of melting. The term does not include finishing processes such 
        as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering, grinding, or 
        shaving.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 42162.

#### Protest 986245-G of Cox & Fahner (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The protest was overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joaquin R. Winfield, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 843]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered August 12, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in *487the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, in effect, acquiesced to appearing before the Grand Jury while in restraints and failed to request an instruction regarding the restraints. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim that dismissal of the indictment is required as he was unfairly prejudiced by his appearance before the Grand Jury is without merit (see, *People v Rouse,*79 NY2d 934; *People v Young,*185 AD2d 369).

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials on the ground that it was made without *Miranda*warnings and was the product of police interrogation. The police did not engage in conduct which an objective observer would conclude was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminatory declaration from the defendant *(see, People v Ferro,*63 NY2d 316, 321, *cert denied*472 US 1007; *People v Georgiou,*236 AD2d 623; *People v Webb,*224 AD2d 464).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
EPA Registration

83520-7 

Volume 2
1
2

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment* *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
3

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to 

confidential treatment*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment* *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment* *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*

*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to 

confidential treatment*
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

*Commercial/financial information may be entitled to confidential 

treatment*
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
**EXHIBIT      32**

| Date:                March 30, 2007                        |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                       |   |   |
| /s/                William B. Danzell                      |   |   |
| William                B. Danzell, Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date:                March 30, 2007                      |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                     |   |   |
| /s/                Nigel P. Hebborn                      |   |   |
| Nigel                P. Hebborn, Chief Financial Officer |   |
#### C. J. Mentrup Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6613.

Entry No. 711005, etc.

Invoices dated Kidderminster, England, July 26, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 27, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Jordan & Klingaman (J. L. Klingaman*of counsel) 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. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. '

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present cases, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values are the appraised values of the articles in question, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar eases.
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004


In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEH Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 29, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Offerman, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:

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

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

/s/ Michael Offerman
------------------------
Michael Offerman
President (Principal Executive Officer)

November 6, 2006



                                       30
# C_2012109EN.01002101.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/21

---

Action brought on 7 February 2012 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)

(Case T-50/12)

2012/C 109/45

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

Applicant:

da

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 November 2011 in case R 2314/2010-1;

| — | Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant and, as appropriate, the Intervener in the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRO KIDS COMPANY’, for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 8200909

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 852751 of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the confronted marks were similar and the likelihood of confusion and/or association could not be excluded.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by 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), as applicable, 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 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan L. Wells                                                                                                
|                     |  |  |  | Alan L. Wells President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
No. 74-5810.

#### May *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.
<PAGE>





March 24, 1997

Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 9-5
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sirs/Madams:

We, as successor accountants of Dayton & Associates (said firm being merged 
with and into Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. on September 1, 1996), have read and 
agree with the comments in the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs of 
Item 8 of the 1996 Form 10KSB of Monarch Bancorp.


Sincerely,



David L. Dayton
for Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.