alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RTN-12.31.2013-Exhibit 10.31




Exhibit 10.31


SUMMARY OF RAYTHEON COMPANY EXECUTIVE 
PERQUISITES POLICY 
 
The Company has an Executive Perquisites Policy, approved by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, that provides executive officers and other key employees with certain benefits. 
 
Each executive officer of the Company is entitled to receive the following perquisites and benefits: financial planning services of up to $15,000 per year; life insurance coverage of up to four times base salary; excess liability insurance of up to $5 million; participation in the Executive Health Program (benefits of up to $2,000 per year); participation in the Executive Registry (access to medical services while on business travel); car allowance of up to $18,000 per year; and first class commercial air travel for business purposes. The Chief Executive Officer is entitled to excess liability insurance coverage of up to $15 million and a car allowance of up to $25,000 per year. More information regarding these perquisites may be found in the Company’s 2013 Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2013.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants of Destia Communication, Inc., we hereby
consent to the use of our report dated February 2, 1999 (and to all references
to our Firm) included in or made a part of Viatel, Inc.'s amended Registration
Statement on Form S-3.

                                        Arthur Andersen LLP

New York, New York
September 7, 2000
#### CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH and Daniel Diefenbach, Appellant, v. Lawrence TAYLOR, Appellee.

No. 71-1044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 11, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity asindicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.   March 15, 2006 /s/Richard A. Smith     Richard A. Smith  Chief Executive Officer
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3664

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 23, (legislative day, February 22), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the

State of Minnesota the New London National Fish

Hatchery production facility.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION FACILITY.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

6 any other provision of law and within 180 days after the

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

8 Interior shall convey to the State of Minnesota without

9 reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the United

10 States in and to the property comprising the New London
2

•HR 3664 RFS

1 National Fish Hatchery production facility, located out2 side of downtown New London, Minnesota, including—

3 (1) all easements and water rights relating to

4 that property, and

5 (2) all land, improvements, and related personal

6 property comprising that production facility.

7 (b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests

8 conveyed under this section shall be used by the Minnesota

9 Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fish10 ery resources management program.

11 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—All right, title, and

12 interest in and to all property and interests conveyed

13 under this section shall revert to the United States on any

14 date on which any of the property or interests are used

15 other than for the Minnesota fishery resources manage16 ment program.

Passed the House of Representatives March 21,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### Douglas Ralph WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

*Rehearing*Denied Dec. 5, 1972.

Wallace, Kreutzer & Breslow and Alexander L. Martone, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant, Douglas Ralph Williams, and his co-defendant were informed against for commission of the crime of robbery. They were both found to be insolvent, the same public defender was appointed to represent them and both defendants entered a plea of not guilty of robbery. Subsequently, the prior not guilty pleas were withdrawn and defendants entered pleas of guilty to the lesser offense of assault with intent to commit robbery. The guilty pleas were accepted by the court following the required examination of the defendants to determine whether they realized the nature of their pleas and if the pleas were voluntarily entered.

Appellant now contends that the appointment of the same public defender to represent both defendants was reversible error. Appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because the public defender had the impossible task of correctly advising two indigent clients with divergent interests. Due to this position, appellant urges his defense was nonexistent and the court proceedings were a farce.

The arguments presented by appellant are untenable in view of well established Florida jurisprudence. Cases involving an attorney’s representation of joint clients turn on prejudice to a defendant and the denial of effective assistance of counsel. Dunbar v. State, Fla. 1969, 220 So.2d 366; DeLaine v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 230 So.2d 168. In the case sub judice there was no *544trial, evidence or trial strategy involved and no defenses were presented due to the defendants’ guilty pleas. The valid reasons used in other cases to find prejudice to multiple defendants represented by a single attorney are not present where the defendants plead guilty, interposing no defenses. Gardner v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 214 So.2d 786; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 29; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 213 So.2d 289.

The effectiveness of appellant’s other points on appeal is mitigated by looking at the record on appeal. For example, the guilty plea entered by appellant was for a lesser offense than he was originally charged and appellant was interrogated by the trial judge before the plea was accepted to determine whether appellant realized the effect of the plea and to see if the plea was voluntary. Therefore, the remaining points on appeal are without substantial merit to require a reversal.

We find no error in these proceedings and accordingly the judgment and sentence of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF MARY D. FRANO

PETITION OF: EAGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, L.P. :

:

:

:

: No. 368 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6176

FRED ARISTOTLE DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLENE DAY, Assistant Public Defender, Commonwealth of Virginia; DAVID HICKS, Commonwealth Attorney for Commonwealth of Virginia,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-00-627-3)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Aristotle Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Fred Aristotle Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Day, No. CA-00-627-3

(E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jesse DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1971.

*396Richard S. Graham, Daytona Beach, and Thorwald J. Husfeld, Deland, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Jesse Daniels was charged with rape in 1958 in Tavares, Florida. He was nineteen years of age at that time. Daniels was committed to the state mental institution in Chattahoochee on an order of confinement issued by Judge Futch on the grounds that Daniels was not competent to stand trial. Appellant Daniels has been in Chattahoochee from the time of his commitment until the present.

On February 24 and 25, 1971, Daniels had a hearing before Circuit Judge E. R. Mills in Lake County, Florida, to determine whether his mental condition had improved sufficiently to allow him to be brought to trial on the charges filed against him. Judge Mills entered an order finding Daniels had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was competent to undergo trial and assist his attorneys in his defense. It is from this order that Jesse Daniels brings this appeal.

We have very thoroughly reviewed the record in this case. The evidence shows that three licensed psychiatrists, one unlicensed psychiatrist employed at the state hospital, a psychologist, a minister, and two attorneys from the Volusia County Public Defender’s office all testified in appellant’s behalf. The testimony of these witnesses shows conclusively that Jesse Daniels is now properly oriented as to time, place and person, and could aid his lawyers in the defense of his case.

The only witness called by the state was a psychologist who works at the state hospital. He testified that he felt the advice Daniels could give to his attorneys would be limited because of Daniels’ low I.Q. He never said that Jesse Daniels could not assist his attorneys in the preparation of his defense, but only that Jesse Daniels’ assistance would be limited. In the face of the very positive evidence showing appellant to be competent, the testimony of this witness was of little value.

We recognize and do not recede from the general rule in Florida that the finding of a trier of fact comes to the appellate court clothed with the presumption of correctness. However, in a case such as this, where the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the findings of the trial court, the appellate court has the authority and the power to enter a reversal. Holland v. Gross, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 255; Heath v. First National Bank in Milton, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 883.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand with directions to enter an order declaring Jesse Daniels competent to stand trial.

PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
# C_2015392EN.01000701.xml

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/06)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2015) 8093 | 24 November 2015 | Trichloroethylene
  EC No 201-167-4
  CAS No 79-01-6 | Vlisco Netherlands BV, Binnen Parallelweg 2, 5701 PH, Helmond, Netherlands | REACH/15/5/0
  REACH/15/5/1 | Use as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed cloth
  Use as a solvent in a process to recover and purify resin from process water | 21 April 2028 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.
  Research on a new solvent-based technology with the potential to develop a sustainable suitable alternative will be carried out under a 12-year research and development plan. |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2015) 8093

24 November 2015

Trichloroethylene

EC No 201-167-4

CAS No 79-01-6

Vlisco Netherlands BV, Binnen Parallelweg 2, 5701 PH, Helmond, Netherlands

REACH/15/5/0

REACH/15/5/1

Use as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed cloth

Use as a solvent in a process to recover and purify resin from process water

21 April 2028

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

Research on a new solvent-based technology with the potential to develop a sustainable suitable alternative will be carried out under a 12-year research and development plan.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44436

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEREMIAH WAYNE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 346

Filed: February 2, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two and one-half years, for assault, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Jeremiah Wayne Jones pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. I.C. § 18-3316. 

In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he 

was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of five years, with 

a minimum period of confinement of two years. Jones appeals.1

 

1 Jones also pled guilty to and was sentenced for a misdemeanor. However, he does not 

challenge that judgment of conviction and sentence on appeal. 
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Jones’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# C_2015289EN.01000401.xml

| 3.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/4

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic apply

(2015/C 289/04)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 (3).

2

3

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union, represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council, and the department entrusted with the processing operation is Unit 1C, which can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 224/2014, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (4).

4

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 70, 11.3.2014, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 229, 3.9.2015, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

4

---
TOP > NEWS > 2010 > Apr - Jun

May 21, 2010

Nissan Introduces Quick EV Charger

YOKOHAMA (May 21, 2010) - Nissan Motor Co. announced today that it is commencing sales of Nissan-developed quick chargers through its regional parts

sales affiliates in preparation for the December release of its Nissan LEAF, the all new zero emission car.

Nissan developed the quick charger in-house, applying its R&D expertise accumulated in development of EVs and related plant equipment which already

installed its EV production plants. This gives the quick charger a competitive pricing advantage at the manufacturer's preferred price of 1.47 million yen.

Nissan plans to install 200-volt standard chargers at 2,200 Nissan dealers nationwide before December, 2010. In addition to that these quick chargers will

be available at 200 selected dealers as well. For the convenience of Nissan LEAF drivers, at least one quick-charge unit will be available within a

40-kilometer radius throughout the country.

Nissan-made Quick Charger

Four main features

1. Safety

For safety, the charger maintains close communication with the vehicle, including various safety equipment like an anti-short-circuit monitor. Also it can be

used under every climate.

2. Broad compatibility

The product follows the CHAdeMO protocol so it works not only with Nissan EVs but with those of other auto makers' EVs as well.

3. Temperature durability

In addition to the standard model, Nissan offers variants for hot and cold climates.

4. Competitively priced

The equipment and high technology of Nissan plants eliminate waste in the production process and make the charger elegantly simple, allowing a very

competitive price.

<Specifications>

 Standard Hot-climate Cold-climate

Model No. NSQC-44-A-1 NSQC-44-B-1 NSQS-44-C-1

Rated input 49kW three-phase 200VAC

Output voltage to 500VDC

Output current to 125A

Power supply connector Compatible with JEVS G 105-1993

Dimensions (HxWxD mm) 1,700x750x640 1,700x1,050x640 1,700x750x710

Optimal operating temperature

range,

-10~40deg(C) -10~50deg(C) -20~40deg(C)

Special features ・Cooling system ・Heater and cold-safe cable

Manufacturer's preferred retail price (excludes tax and installation) One-year manufacturer warranty included (unit: yen)

 (*1)

 (*2)
One-year manufacturer warranty included

 Standard Hot-climate Cold-climate

Price 1,470,000 1,732,500 1,543,500

Notes:

*1: CHAdeMO Organization established to encourage quick-charging stations, specifically to increase the number of stations. Quick charger is essential to

the spread of EVs, and support related standards.

*2: JEVS G105-1993: The Japan Electric Vehicle Standard is set officially by the Japan Automobile Research Institute; G105-1993 covers the connector for

the Eco Station rapid EV charging system.

###