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

----

**UNITED      STATES**

**SECURITIES      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington,      D.C. 20549**

----

**Form      8-K**

**Current      Report**

----

**Pursuant      to Section 13 or 15(d)**

**of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

**August      14, 2006**

**Date      of Report (Date of earliest event reported)**

**FNB      Financial Services Corporation**

**(Exact      name of registrant as specified in its charter)**

**Commission      file number: **
***000-13086***

----

| **North                Carolina**                           | **56-1382275**                                          |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| **(State                of incorporation)**                 | **(I.R.S.                Employer Identification No.)** |
|                                                        |                                                    |
| **1501                Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 400**      |                                                    |
| **Greensboro,                North Carolina**               | **27410**                                               |
| **(Address                of principal executive offices)** | **(Zip                Code)**                           |

**(336)      369-0900**

**(**
**Registrant's**
**      telephone number, including area code)**

**This      Form 8-K has 3 pages.**

----

----

**ITEM      8.01: Other Events**

**ITEM      9.01(c):   Exhibit**

----

**S I G N A T U R E**

|   | **FNB                FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (Registrant)                                               |
|   |                                                       |
|   | By:                /s/ K.                Dwight Willoughby |
|   |                                                       |
|   | K.                Dwight Willoughby                        |
|   | Vice                President, Chief Accounting Officer    |
|   | and                Controller                              |
|   |                                                       |
|   |                                                       |
How Poultry Disease Spreads in the Live-Bird Marketing System

Poultry Equipment 

Can Spread Disease

• Filler flats

• Hauling crates/coops

• Cages

• Water containers

• Tools

Auction

Wholesaler/Distributor

The Live-Bird Marketing System 

Can Spread Disease

• Unsanitary conditions

 • Close contact among birds

 • Birds of unknown origin

 • Mixing groups of birds

 • Rodents

Birds Can Spread Disease

• Bird-to-bird

• Carcasses

• Manure

• Litter and debris

• Feathers

• Exposure to wild birds

Vehicles Can Spread Disease

• Tractors

• Trucks and cars

• Front-end loaders

Poultry Farm

People Can 

Spread Disease

• Improper or inadequate biosecurity

• Clothing, boots, and shoes

• Handling birds

PREVENT DISEASE —PRACTICE BIOSECURITY • www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/birdbiosecurity

Live-Bird Market
How Poultry 

Disease Spreads 

in the Live-Bird 

Marketing 

System

The Live-Bird Marketing System 

Cooperative Program addresses the 

persistence of low-pathogenic avian 

influenza (LPAI) associated with the 

live-bird marketing system in the United 

States. The Veterinary Services (VS) 

branch of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) began 

the program with States and industry to 

prevent and control LPAI in the markets 

and among production premises and 

poultry distributors that supply 

the markets.

The program forges an important 

relationship between commercial and 

noncommercial industries and requires 

them to work together to protect 

America’s flocks.

While birds with LPAI often show few 

or no clinical signs, the disease is 

contagious, and its H5 and H7 subtypes 

have the potential to mutate into highly 

pathogenic avian influenza. That deadly 

disease causes trading partners to 

implement immediate trade restrictions.

n Diagnoses, controls, and prevents LPAI subtypes 

H5 and H7.

n Implements licensing, registration, and testing 

requirements for markets, poultry distributors, and 

production premises.

n Improves biosecurity, sanitation, and disease control 

at poultry operations.

n Minimizes the effects of LPAI on the U.S. commercial 

poultry industry.

n Encourages participation by States across the country.

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs

United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Protecting America’s 

Live-Bird Markets

Highlights of the Live-Bird 

Marketing System Cooperative Program

Photos: The images of caged poultry on the front 

cover and, on the inside, of a bird being weighed 

were furnished by the New York State Department 

of Agriculture and Markets. The picture of chickens 

on the front cover was taken by USDA Agricultural 

Research Service photographer Stephen Ausmus. 

All other images were taken by APHIS photographer R. Anson Eaglin.

Program Aid No. 1958

Issued January 2008

USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

LOOK

for Signs.

REPORT 

Sick Birds.

PRACTICE 

Biosecurity.
The Nevada State Implementation Plan 

for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Primary NAAQS: 

Demonstration of Adequacy 

Including

 The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

Primary NAAQS: Demonstration of Adequacy 

 State Implementation Plan Revision to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Section 

110(a)(2). Clark County, Nevada.

 The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan to Meet the Nitrogen Dioxide Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)

Submitted

January 18, 2013
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2300 

To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain States subject 

to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain 

States subject to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that an approximate 180-day period 

5 before which States and utilities are required to comply 

6 with certain new rules regarding maximum permissible 

7 emissions of ozone, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides 

8 under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is insufficient 

9 for those States and utilities to achieve that compliance. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2300 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis4 trator’’ means the Administrator of the Environ5 mental Protection Agency. 

6 (2) CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE.—The term 

7 ‘‘Clean Air Interstate Rule’’ means the final rule 

8 promulgated by the Administrator entitled ‘‘Rule To 

9 Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

10 Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revi11 sions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX 

12 SIP Call’’ (70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)). 

13 (3) CROSS STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE.—The 

14 term ‘‘Cross State Air Pollution Rule’’ means the 

15 final rule promulgated by the Administrator entitled 

16 ‘‘Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Trans17 port of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Cor18 rection of SIP Approvals’’ (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (Au19 gust 8, 2011)) and revisions to that final rule enti20 tled ‘‘Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To 

21 Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

22 Matter and Ozone’’ (77 Fed. Reg. 10324 (February 

23 21, 2012)). 

24 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINE. 

25 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 

26 that was not required to reduce emissions or levels of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2300 IS

1 ozone, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides under the Clean 

2 Air Interstate Rule shall not be required to comply with 

3 any requirement under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

4 before January 1, 2017. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013171EN.01001102.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Kamino International Logistics BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-129/13)

2013/C 171/22

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kamino International Logistics BV

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities lend itself to direct application by the national courts?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:






  (a) | must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)

must the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities be interpreted to mean that the principle was infringed when the addressee of an intended decision was not given a hearing before the authorities adopted a measure which adversely affected it but was given the opportunity to be heard in a subsequent (objection) phase, which precedes access to the national courts?

| (b) | are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are the legal consequences of the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence governed by national law?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2b is in the negative: what circumstances may the national courts take into account when determining the legal consequences, and in particular may they take into account whether it is likely that, without the infringement by the authorities of the European law principle of respect for the rights of the defence, the proceedings would have had a different outcome?

---
Presidential Documents

41803

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 148

Friday, August 1, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Notice of July 31, 1997

Continuation of Iraqi Emergency

On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared

a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat

to national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted

by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders

12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed

trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the

Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States

interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August

2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to

deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 1997.

Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect

to Iraq.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to

[FR Doc. 97–20558

the Congress.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 31, 1997.

œ–

Filed 7–31–97; 11:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
Before the Second Division,

August 23, 1938

No. 39251.

#### Protest 711548-G of T. Saji Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

En accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 28313 the incense in question was held free of duty under *381paragraph 1600. Candlesticks, flower vases, incense burners, and dishes chiefly used for utilitarian purposes were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
No. 40557.

#### Protests 952764-G, etc., of M. Pressner & Co. et al. (Seattle and New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the records presented the protests were dismissed for lack of evidence.
#### KROEHLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al. v. Willie West HEIDELBERG.

No. 49287.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 6, 1977.

Snow, Covington, Temple & Watts, Kenneth Watts, Meridian, for appellant.

Goldman & Goldman, Dennis Goldman, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., ROBERTSON, SUGG, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

April 14, 2003

Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

     Re:  Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
          to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     In connection with the Annual Report of LL&E Royalty Trust (the "Trust")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not
in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Trust at the dates and for the periods presented.

     The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.


                                   JPMorgan Chase Bank,
                                   Trustee for LL&E Royalty Trust


                                   By: /s/ Mike Ulrich
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Mike Ulrich
                                       Vice President and Trust Officer
No. 92-1320.

#### Missouri Division of Employment Security et al. *v.*Hase.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of PMC Capital, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry
N. Berlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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




/s/ Barry N. Berlin
-------------------
Barry N. Berlin
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003


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

         A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit
        10.10

      


      Osteologix,
        Inc. Consulting Agreement with Stephan Christgau

      


      The
        consulting agreement by and between Osteologix, Inc. and Stephan Christgau
        consists of two parts (attached):

      


      
        	 	
                1)

              	
                Exhibit
                  B to Compensation Committee minutes, signed and agreed to by Stephan
                  Christgau and Osteologix, Inc. on September 19,
                  2007

              


      

      


      
        	 	
                2)

              	
                Consulting
                  agreement dated as of September 7, 2007 between Stephan Christgau
                  and
                  Osteologix, Inc.

              


      

    

     

     

     

    
      
        
           

        

        
           

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

       

      


       

      EXHIBIT
        B

       

      Bonus
        for 2006 - 2007

       

      


       

      Dr.
        Christgau was entitled to earn a performance bonus for work as an employee
        of
        Osteologix Inc. The calculation of the bonus was approved by the Board of
        Directors Compensation Committee as follows:

       

      Payout
        was up to a maximum of 33% of salary 

       

      Dr
        Christgau was awarded 60 % of the 33% maximum allowed
        bonus

       

      Dr
        Christgau has agreed to take the bonus in stock equivalent to 28,000
        shares

       

      


       

      


       

      


       

      


       

      


       

      


       

      
        	 	
                OSTEOLOGIX,
                  INC. 

              
	 	 	 
	
                Dated
                  as of September 19, 2007

              	
                By:
                  

              	
                 /s/
                  Philip J. Young

              
	 	 	 
	 	
                Title:

              	
                President
                  and CEO

              
	 	 	 
	 	
                STEPHAN
                  CHRISTGAU PH.D.,
                  an individual

              
	 	 	 
	
                Dated
                  as of September 19, 2007

              	
                /s/
                  Stephan Christgau
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41037-41038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-423-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

July 25, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 21, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 452, to become effective 
August 20, 1997.
    WNG states that the purpose for the instant filing is to amend 
Exhibit A to the Form of Storage Service Agreement Under Rate Schedule 
FSS. Service under Rate Schedule FSS is available to parties who have 
an effective ITS, FTS, or SFT Service Agreement. When WNG filed its 
Form of Service Agreement for FSS, it inadvertently omitted from 
Exhibit A the line for referencing the associated transportation 
agreement(s). WNG is making this filing to correct this omission.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided in 
section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will

[[Page 41038]]

not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20126 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Discription of Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Terms


 EXHIBIT 10.45 
 DESCRIPTION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR CASH COMPENSATION TERMS 
 Non-employee directors will receive a $2,000 per month annual
retainer, with chairs of committees receiving an additional $4,000 annual retainer and committee members receive an additional $1,000 annual retainer. Such retainers will be paid in installments quarterly. Finally, each year non-employee directors
receive a grant of an option to acquire 10,000 shares of our common stock, which vests at the end of each year, with acceleration of vesting upon the occurrence of a Change in Control (as that term is defined in our 2005 Stock Incentive Plan).