alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WEX 2013.12.31 EX 10.22




Exhibit 10.22
2013 Corporate Annual Grant Long-Term Incentive Program 


Award Date: 


March 15, 2013


Unit Allocation Ratio: 


	
			
	Wright Express 
Job Category
	PSUs
	RSUs

	All Levels
	60%
	40%

	New Hire
	varies
	varies






PSU = Performance Based Restricted Stock Units
RSU = Restricted Stock Unit


Vesting Schedule:


The award vests at a rate of one third each year over a 3-year period beginning on the first anniversary of the award date.


Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Calculations: 


The number of PSUs vesting under this 2013 Corporate Annual Grant Program is based on the following: 


	
										
	 
	Payout %(1)(4)
	Adjusted Net Income (40%) (2)
	PPG Adj Revenue 
(60%)(3)

	 
	 
	Perf Level(3)
	$(,000)
	Perf Level(3)
	$(,000)

	Threshold
	25%
	80.0%
	$
	138,741
	

	85.0%
	$
	630,500
	


	 
	50%
	90.0%
	$
	156,084
	

	92.5%
	$
	686,132
	


	Target
	100%
	100.0%
	$
	173,426
	

	100.0%
	$
	741,765
	


	 
	125%
	103.5%
	$
	179,496
	

	101.3%
	$
	751,037
	


	Target/Max
	150%
	107.0%
	$
	185,566
	

	102.5%
	$
	760,309
	


	 
	175%
	110.5%
	$
	191,636
	

	103.8%
	$
	769,581
	


	Max
	200%
	114.0%
	$
	197,706
	

	105.0%
	$
	778,853
	







		
	(1)
	Threshold ANI performance must be achieved for any PSUs to vest.




		
	(2)
	Adjusted Net Income means Adjusted Net Income as reported in the Corporation’s Form 10-K filing reporting the Corporation’s results for the performance period (the “10-K ANI”).  Notwithstanding the foregoing,in order to determine the level of performance for purposes of this Program,  the Compensation Committee may exercise discretion to reduce the 10K ANI by any or all of the following items (if any): losses from discontinued operations, the cumulative effects of changes in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, any one-time charge or dilution resulting from any acquisition or divestiture, the effect of changes to our effective federal or state tax rates, extraordinary items of loss or expense, and any other unusual or nonrecurring items of loss or expense, including restructuring charges.  




		
	(3)
	PPG Adjusted Revenue  is reported 2013  Revenue adjusted for the difference between reported 2013  PPG and Board-approved budgeted 2013 PPG of $ 3.50 US and A$1.43 (per liter) Australian.




		
	(4)
	Shares granted are ratable between payout levels
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. McArthur JOHNSON v. SHERIFF, BOSSIER PARISH, Benton, Louisiana.

No. 62168.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1978.

In re: McArthur Johnson, applying for writ of review.

Denied.
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Certification


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Amcast  Industrial  Corporation (the
"Issuer")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending May 30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Joseph
R. Grewe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



By /s/ Joseph R. Grewe
   ----------------------
     Joseph R. Grewe
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     June 30, 2004
The Connecticut Light and Power CompanyExhibit 12Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(In thousands)Six Months
EndedJune 30, 2008Year Ended December 31,Earnings, as defined:(unaudited)20072006200520042003Net income$          92,323$        133,564$        200,007$         94,845$          88,016$          68,908Income tax expense/(benefit)37,45352,353(43,961)32,17445,53918,135Equity in (earnings)/losses of regional
     nuclear generating companies(200)(1,901)854(1,153)(568)(1,776)Dividends received from regional 
     equity investees-2,5961,4074122,5776,359Fixed charges, as below81,168155,557131,923133,321119,857119,550Less: Interest capitalized
      (including AFUDC)(6,697)(10,924)(6,610)(6,719)(3,110)(2,976)Total earnings, as defined$        204,047$        331,245$        283,620$        252,880$        252,311$        208,200Fixed charges, as defined:Interest on long-term debt (a)$         48,999$          84,292$          64,873$          59,019$          43,308$          39,815Interest on rate reduction bonds15,81137,72846,69255,79663,66770,284Other interest (b)6,56116,4136,2815,2203,072508Rental interest factor3,1006,2007,4676,5676,7005,967Interest capitalized (including AFUDC)6,69710,9246,6106,7193,1102,976Total fixed charges, as defined$          81,168$        155,557$        131,923$        133,321$        119,857$        119,550Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges2.512.132.151.902.111.74(a)
Interest on long-term debt amounts include amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness.(b)
For the six months ended June 30, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2007, other interest includes interest expense related to Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, "Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes - an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109."
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7213 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7213

  To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been 
  violated by a person acting under Federal authority, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2020

  Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Raskin) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been 
  violated by a person acting under Federal authority, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Bivens Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION AGAINST PERSON ACTING UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

    Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by 
inserting ``of the United States or'' before ``of any State''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wade LUPE and Rose Lupe, his wife, Petitioners, v. CITY OF FORT PIERCE, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 15, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1970.

Philip G. Nourse, Fort Pierce, for petitioners.

Spencer B. Gilbert, Fort Pierce, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have treated this interlocutory appeal from an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding as a petition for a writ of certiorari. Upon review of the order appealed, the briefs, record, and the oral argument, we have determined that the appellants have presented absolutely no basis on which this court may disturb the order of taking. Certiorari is, therefore, denied.

REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.

CROSS, C. J., specially concurs in conclusion, with opinion.

CROSS, Chief Judge

(specially concurring in conclusion).

I decline to treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari.

The interlocutory appeal seeks review of an order entered in a proceeding at law. No showing has been made by the “interlocutory appeal” sufficient to invoke this court’s organic power to issue a common law writ of certiorari to review the order, I would dismiss the interlocutory appeal.
#### Errol J. MARTIN, Jr. v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON et al.

No. 61151.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Errol J. Martin, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of *1041Parish of Jeffer-Appeal, Fourth Circuit, son.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Donald F. Fultz, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sensytech, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluations; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 12, 2004   /s/ Donald F. Fultz    Donald F. Fultz  Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.4(44)



 EXHIBIT 10.4(44) 

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL 

AMENDMENT TO ALL STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHT AGREEMENTS 

On October 7, 2013, the Compensation Committee of MGM Resorts International (the “Company”) adopted an amendment with respect to all outstanding and
future stock appreciation rights in respect of Company shares in order to allow for the same-day exercise and sale of the shares underlying the stock appreciation rights. Pursuant to such resolutions, the definition of Fair Market Value with respect
to all existing and future stock appreciation rights will be: 
  

	 	•	 	for purposes of determining the “Fair Market Value” at the time of exercise (and thus for purposes of determining the withholding price), the actual price of the share reported on the applicable exchange at
the approximate time of exercise; and 

  

	 	•	 	for conversion price, the closing price of a share reported on the applicable exchange on the grant date.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68361-68362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice that a meeting of 
the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, authorized by 38 
U.S.C., section 3121, will be held on January 13, 14 and 15, 1998, in 
Washington, DC. The committee will meet from 9 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on 
January 13 and 14, in the First Floor Meeting Room of the Disabled 
American Veterans Washington Headquarters, 807 Maine Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20024, and from 9 a.m. until 12 noon on January 15, 
1998, in room 530 of the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, 
810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420. The purpose of the 
meeting will be to review the administration of veterans' 
rehabilitation programs and to provide recommendations to the 
Secretary.
    On January 13, the meeting will include discussions about the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Design Team Report, the Transmission 
Commission's activities as they relate to vocational rehabilitation. 
They will also receive updates from the Veterans Health Administration 
and Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Service. They will also 
discuss the memorandum of understanding between the Department of Labor 
and VA's Vocational Rehabilitation. On January 14, discussions will 
include REVERSE data base of vocational rehabilitation job ready 
candidates, beneficiary travel for

[[Page 68362]]

prosthetics service, priority for Chapter 31 clients to receive medical 
care, and the pilot program of rehabilitation outcome measurements. On 
January 15, the Committee will discuss recreation therapy, the new 
Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor position, and future meetings and 
agenda items.
    The meeting will be open to the public. For those wishing to 
attend, please contact Dianna Murphy at (202) 273-7419. Interested 
persons may attend, appear before, or file statements with the 
Committee. Statements, if in written form, may be filed before the 
meeting. Oral statements will be heard at 9 a.m. on January 15, 1998.

    Dated: December 19, 1997.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-34123 Filed 12-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                            C E R T I F I C A T I O N

      I, Earl L. Powers, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment
      No. 1) and this Form 10-Q/A Equivalent (Amendment No. 2) of Birds Eye
      Foods, Inc.; and

2.    Based on my knowledge, these reports do 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 these
      reports.

Dated: March 29, 2006                              /s/ Earl L. Powers
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer and
                                                   Secretary
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)

                                        6
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1600

In re: GREGORY SCOTT SAVOY ,
Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:20

- cv - 00784

- LO

- IDD )

Submitted : August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Gregory Scott Savoy , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Scott Savoy petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to correct its order entered on March 4, 2021, or to grant his pending motion to alter the judgment. We conclude that Savoy is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ; In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) . Further, mandamus relief is av ailable only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, mandamus may not b e used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). To the extent that Savoy alleges a delay by the district court in ruling on his postjudgment motion, our review of the record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. To the extent that Savoy seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act, we conclude that t he relief sought by Savoy is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Savoy’s motions to correct the mandamus petition and for leave to file physical exhibits, w e deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument wo uld not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Jk^^^^^^B^ Montana Department of Transportation Timothy w. Reardon, Director 

- • MM^M ^ ^^Q J Prospect Avenue -: • •• m-. ;.rr, | r i-)r ^TM " Schweitzer, Governor 

po Box 201001 v";;;-';:'p^;L,y.'', 

Helena MT 59620-1001 '.; ' .:-::"Uri j A! ;0:N 

November 15, 2011 \\"i'T OFFRAT'r);.'S 

Mr. Dennis DeVany ' ' ' ' '"^ ' " •-

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: EAS Carrier Selection. Docket DOT-OST-2011-0136 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) offers the following comments relative to the 

selection of an essential air service carrier at Butte, Montana. 

MDT is encouraged to see competition in this market. This action fosters healthy promotion of 

services from all carriers interested in EAS routes and ultimately can result in better service for a 

community. 

MDT endorses the letter written by Paul Babb, Chief Executive for Butte Silver Bow 

recommending SkyWest Airlines is selected to provide service for a new two-year term. 

SkyWest Airlines has served the community well in the past with good efficient service. 

Gulfstream International Airlines is commended for providing a qualified route proposal for 

review and for its service to eastern Montana. As mentioned in Mr. Babb's letter, Butte's 

preference is for air service to Sah Lake City, a medium-sized hub and for no reduction in 

available seats. 

We are proud of our partnership with the U.S Department of Transportation and appreciate the 

opportunity to provide comment to this important selection process. 

Tim Reardi 

Director 

copies:Debbie Alke, Aeronautics Division Administrator 

Paul Babb, Butte-Silver Bow Chief Executive 

Pat Shea, Butte Interim Airport Manager 

Michael Thompson, Vice-President SkyWest Airlines 

Mickey Bowman, Gulfstream International Airlines 

An Equal Opportunity Employer
SHW-12.31.2013-EX10g






EXHIBIT 10(g)


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY 2005
DEFFERED COMPENSATION SAVINGS AND PENSION EQUALIZATION PLAN
(As Amended and Restated)


This Amendment No. 2 to The Sherwin-Williams Company 2005 Deferred Compensation Savings and Pension Equalization Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective as of January 1, 2013.  


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, The Sherwin-Williams Company (the “Company”) established the Plan effective January 1, 1991 and has subsequently amended and restated the Plan thereafter;


WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 8.1 of the Plan, the Company retains the right to amend the Plan at any time in whole or in part; and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to add a new Designated Participant that is eligible to receive benefits pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Plan;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth:


		
	1.
	Exhibit A of the Plan is amended to add the following Designated Participant: 




“Mark R. Henderson.”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Sherwin-Williams Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 23rd day of December 2013.


                    	
			
	THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY

	 
	 

	By:
	/S/
	 

	 
	 
	Catherine M. Kilbane, Sr. Vice President

	 
	 
	General Counsel and Secretary
**Docket Number F AA**  **- 2014**  **- 0191**
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Boardof Directors and Shareholders

CubicCorporation

 

Wehave reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation asof December 31, 2005,and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows forthe three-month periods ended December 31, 2005 and 2004.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

 

Weconducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally ofapplying analytical procedures, and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters.  It issubstantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standardsof the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as awhole.  Accordingly, we do not expresssuch an opinion.

 

Basedon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should bemade to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above forthem to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet ofCubic Corporation as of September 30, 2005 and the related consolidatedstatements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for theyear then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated December 5,2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financialstatements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanyingcondensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2005, is fairlystated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheetfrom which it has been derived.

 

 
|                  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                  |                           |
|                  |                           |
| San Diego, California |                           |
| January 31, 2006 |                           |

 

----