alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.84
 
 
 Cyberonics,
Inc.
 Summary
of Fiscal Year 2008 Executive Bonus Program
 
 On
September 10, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the
"Compensation Committee") of Cyberonics, Inc. (the "Company") approved the terms
pursuant to which it will consider the award of annual bonuses to members of the
Company’s executive management, including the named executive officers, at the
end of fiscal year 2008. All bonuses will be paid, if at all, from a bonus pool
consisting of the sum of the target bonus amounts for all members of executive
management, subject to the achievement of certain business and individual
performance objectives, as explained below. Pursuant to the terms of their
employment agreements, copies of which are on file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the target bonus amount for each Company vice president is
50% of the vice president’s annual base salary, and the target bonus amount for
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") is 75% of his annual base salary.
The bonus pool will be funded or not according to the Company’s achievement of a
revenue plan objective (25%) and an operating income plan objective (25%)
excluding non-cash and certain special charges and according to each executive’s
achievement of certain individual performance objectives (50%). Thus, for
example, if the Company achieves 100% of the revenue plan, then 25% of the
target amount of each executive’s annual bonus will be added to the bonus pool.
The extent of funding pursuant to the achievement of the revenue plan objective
and operating income plan objective is scaled relative to the extent of
achievement of the plans, subject to the discretion of the Compensation
Committee, as follows:
 
 %
      Plan Achievement
              
              %
      Target Amount Funded<90%
              
              0%90%
              
              50%95%
              
              75%100%
              
              100%105%
              
              110%110%
              
              120%115%
              
              130%120%
              
              140%≥125%
              
              150%
 
 The bonus
actually awarded to an individual executive may range from 0% to 200% of the
executive’s target bonus amount, as determined by the Compensation Committee,
depending on the executive’s accomplishment of personal objectives and
contribution to the organization throughout the fiscal year. The sum of all
bonuses awarded to executives may be less than, but cannot exceed, the total
amount of the bonus pool. The Compensation Committee will review with the CEO on
a quarterly basis the progress of each executive toward accomplishment of the
executive’s personal objectives, and the CEO will recommend to the Compensation
Committee at the end of the fiscal year the amount of the annual bonus, if any,
for each executive. The Compensation Committee retains full discretion to modify
the plan and determine bonus pool funding and award of executive bonuses as it
deems appropriate.
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 15, 2016

Ms. Julie Ann Racino

Community and Policy Studies

Re: In the Matter of HeidelbergCement AG and Italcementi S.p.A.

File No. 151-0200, Docket No. C-4579

Dear Ms. Racino:

Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed consent order accepted by the 

Federal Trade Commission for public comment in the above-captioned matter. The Commission 

has placed your comments on the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given them careful 

consideration in connection with its decision concerning whether to accord final approval to the 

proposed consent order. 

In determining the cement plants and terminals to be divested, the Commission analyzed 

the geographic markets where HeidelbergCement and Italcementi currently compete in the 

United States. In each market, we conducted a detailed, fact-specific evaluation of all of the 

circumstances. Based on that analysis, the Commission finds that the divestiture of the assets 

specified in the consent order will have the likely effect of maintaining or restoring competition

in the affected markets.

In your comment, you expressed general concerns regarding alleged monopolies in 

sectors unrelated to those investigated in the above-captioned matter. The Federal Trade 

Commission is dedicated to enforcing the nation’s antitrust laws, which form the foundation of 

our free market economy. The staff at the Federal Trade Commission work to promote the 

interests of consumers and seek all appropriate remedies when a transaction presents a risk of 

anticompetitive harm. 

In light of these considerations, among others, the Commission has determined that 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification best serves the public interest. 

A copy of the final Decision and Order is enclosed for your information. Relevant materials are 

also available from the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. We appreciate your 

comments and interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org May 10, 2012

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division

California Air Resources Board

PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, Negative Declaration for CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008)

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of a revision to the State Implementation Plan. On March 22, 2012, the SMAQMD Board of Directors adopted a negative declaration, finding that there are no District sources to which the following Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document applies:

Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.

Clean Air Act Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires states/districts to revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions for each category of VOC sources covered by all CTG documents issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area’s date of attainment. This negative declaration is being submitted in lieu of a RACT rule.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, a notice was prominently displayed on the District’s web site, providing a 30-day period for the public to request a public hearing. The notice procedure is

consistent with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation Memo to Regional Administrators, “Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use of ‘Letter Notices’,” April 6, 2011. No request for a hearing was received during the 30-day period. Therefore, the public hearing was cancelled and the negative declaration was adopted.

Please forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:Mr. Michael Guzzetta May 10, 2012 Page 2

1. SIP Checklist 2. Negative Declaration for the Fiberglass Boat Materials CTG

3. Public Notice Evidence

4. Resolution

5. Rule Evaluation Form 6. Staff Report
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





(Date of report)July 26, 2013(Date of earliest event reported)July 25, 2013





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[] Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---




Item 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn July 25, 2013, we announced that the board of directors of our general partner, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., approved a cash distribution of 72 cents per unit for the second quarter 2013.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 8.01Other EventsOn July 25, 2013, the board of directors of our general partner, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., approved a cash distribution of 72 cents per unit effective for the second quarter 2013.  The second-quarter distribution is payable on August 15, 2013, to unitholders of record as ofAugust 5, 2013.Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits(d)ExhibitsExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated July 25, 2013.





2


---




SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:July 26, 2013By:/s/ Derek S. ReinersDerek S. ReinersSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated July 25, 2013.








4
#### Barbara Clement BAKER v. D. H. HOLMES COMPANY, LTD. et al. (Consolidated with No. 5851-John E. Baker v. D. H. Holmes Company, Ltd., et al.).

No. 5850.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1973.

Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Reserve, for plaintiff-appellee.

Sims, Mack & Sims, Joseph A. Sims, Jr., and Robert J. Mack, Hammond, for plaintiff.

Trombatore & Vondenstein, Benjamin J. Trombatore and Michael J. Power, Ken-ner, for appellee.

Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer, Matthews & Schumacher, Allen R. Fontenot, New Orleans, for appellants.

Before LEMMON, J., and BAILES and FLEMING, JJ. Pro Tern.

*289LEMMON, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in John E. Baker v. D. H. Holmes, Ltd., et al, 285 So.2d 282, decided this day, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7404 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7404

    To repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2020

 Mr. Johnson of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas.

    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 ``Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential 
Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. ADVANCING UNITED STATES GLOBAL LEADERSHIP.

    Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsections (a) through (c);
            (2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
        (a) and (b), respectively;
            (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c), and 
        moving such subsection after subsection (b), as so 
        redesignated;
            (4) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by amending 
        paragraph (1) to read as follows: ``(1) The Commission shall 
        have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application 
        for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a 
        facility to export natural gas from the United States to a 
        foreign country or import natural gas from a foreign country, 
        including an LNG terminal. Except as specifically provided in 
        this Act, nothing in this Act is intended to affect otherwise 
        applicable law related to any Federal agency's authorities or 
        responsibilities related to facilities to import or export 
        natural gas, including LNG terminals.''; and
            (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the President 
under the Constitution, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 
(50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 
et seq.), part B of title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(42 U.S.C. 6271 et seq.), the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 
App. 1 et seq.), or any other provision of law that imposes sanctions 
on a foreign person or foreign government (including any provision of 
law that prohibits or restricts United States persons from engaging in 
a transaction with a sanctioned person or government), including a 
foreign government that is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, 
to prohibit imports or exports.''.
                                 <all>
```
March 1, 2011

Sgt. J. Matt Tarczynski Pennsylvania State Police

Aviation Patrol Unit 3 575 Airport Drive New Cumberland, PA 17070

Dear Sgt. Tarczynski:

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it.

We Have the Petition

We’ve received your petition filed on February 8, 2011 on behalf of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), Aviation Patrol Unit 3, for an exemption from § 43.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow PSP pilots to remove and reinstall the Gyrocam camera in the absence of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

licensed technician.

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0125) and we are processing it. We will contact you if we need additional information.

How We’ll Process the Petition

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it.

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4059.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frances Shaver Program Analyst Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry MAJOR, Jr.

No. 61065.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Alton T. Moran, Allen J. Bergeron, Jr., Sidney M. Blitzer, Jr., John C. Miller, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Robert H. Hester, Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 The Banker's Store, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10- QSB for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Paul D. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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 results of operations of the Company.


Dated: October 20, 2003                                    /s/ PAUL D. CLARK
                                                           -----------------
                                                           Paul D. Clark
                                                           President and Chief
                                                           Executive Officer
<Page>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Vital Signs, Inc. (the 'Company') on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 'Report'), I, Terry D. Wall, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
        dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
        for the periods presented.

Dated: December 12, 2003

/s/ TERRY D. WALL
 ...........................
Terry D. Wall
Chief Executive Officer






                                       59
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                       NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, (the "Form 10-Q") of North Country
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, William T. Fitzgerald Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer,
     certify that:

     1.   The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and
     2.   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


/s/ William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
-----------------------------------------
William T. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
November 12, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 24, 2014

s0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148941

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148941

COA: 319691

Macomb CC: 2012

- 004269

- FC

ALONTEZ DEREECE WILLIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 37 38 39 40 41 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/04 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
No. 10503.

#### Newton *v.*McKinstry et al.

Decided March 3, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*Mr. Edwin F. Voris*and *Messrs. Voris, Vaughan & Vaughan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Stuart & Stuart; Messrs. Cushing & Siddall; Mr. I. T. Siddall*and *Mr. Edtvin F. Voris,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony J. ROY, Sr. v. The UNION BANK.

No. 60316.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: The Union Bank, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles. 347 So.2d 286.

Writ denied. No error of law.

SANDERS, C. J.,

is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.

MARCUS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.