alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1 02112014 Clawback Policy






    
Questar Corporation
Clawback Policy
The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Questar Corporation (the “Company”) believes it is appropriate for the Company to adopt the following clawback policy (the "Policy") to be applied to Company officers who are subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (each, an “Executive”). 
If the Company is required to restate its financial statements due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement as a direct or indirect result of Misconduct (as defined below) by an Executive, then the Board (or a Board committee designated by the Board) may require reimbursement or forfeiture to the Company of all or a portion of any cash or equity-based incentive compensation paid to the Executive or Executives engaging in or otherwise accountable for such Misconduct.  For purposes of this policy, "Misconduct" shall mean (A) fraud, (B) willful misconduct or gross negligence, and/or (C) a material breach of the Company’s Business Ethics and Compliance Policy, as determined in the sole discretion of the Board (or designated Committee).
In determining whether to require reimbursement or forfeiture and, if so, the amount of such reimbursement or forfeiture, the Board (or Board committee) shall take into account such factors as it deems appropriate, including (A) whether any bonus, incentive or equity compensation earned with respect to the period covered by the restatement was based on the achievement of specified performance targets and, if so, whether any such compensation would have been reduced had the financial results been properly reported at the time such compensation was determined, (B) the likelihood of success in seeking reimbursement or forfeiture under governing law relative to the effort involved, (C) whether the assertion of a reimbursement or forfeiture claim may prejudice the interests of the Company in any related proceeding or investigation, or otherwise, (D) whether the expense of seeking reimbursement or forfeiture is likely to exceed the amount sought or likely to be recovered, (E) the passage of time since the occurrence of the act in respect of the applicable Misconduct, (F) any pending or threatened legal proceeding relating to the applicable Misconduct, and any actual or anticipated resolution (including any settlement) relating thereto, (G) the tax consequences to the affected Executive and (H) such other factors as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
Any determination of the Board (or Board committee) shall be conclusive and binding on the Company and the applicable Executives.  The determination of the Board (or Board committee) need not be uniform with respect to one or more Executives.
This policy shall apply to any cash or equity-based incentive compensation paid to an Executive (while such individual is an Executive) from and after the date of the adoption of this policy by the Board during the three (3) year period preceding the date on which the Company discloses on Form 8-K or via other publicly filed disclosure that it is required to restate its financial statements.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with this Quarterly Report of VizConnect, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Cooleen, President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VizConnect, Inc.







Date: July 11, 2013





/s/ Paul CooleenPaul CooleenPresident

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### James Edward TORRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 5, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0542

 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM162AD

737-57A1277, R2 --- 6/9/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-114141, 333-99057 and 333-62762) and in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116030, 333-105522, 333-99061, and 333-63995) of IntradoInc. of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
|                            |   |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP     |
| Denver, Colorado                |
| March 16, 2005                  |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)   In connection with the Report of HotelPlace, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Yonika, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:  1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: January 26, 2011  By: /s/ Kenneth J. Yonika Kenneth J. Yonika Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report in this Form 10-K into the Partnership's previously
filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-24717, 333-34581, 333-40815,
333-46343 and 333-60931.

                  ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 25, 2000
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 33-39781, 33-39725, 33-40400, 33-40395, 33-40396, 33-66084, 33-54397,
33-54399, 33-54393 and 33-40702 of Nabisco Group Holdings Corp. on Form S-8, of
our report dated February 2, 2000 and our report on the financial statement
schedules dated February 2, 2000, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of Nabisco Group Holdings Corp. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Parsippany, New Jersey

September 26, 2000
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SurModics, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gary R. Maharaj, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated:  May 10, 2016 | Signature: | /s/ Gary R. Maharaj                   |
|--------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|
|                           |       | Gary R. Maharaj                       |
|                           |       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
----

----

I Meddelelser

Kommissionen

----

Euroens vekselkurs (1)

5. januar 2005

(2005/C 3/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

----

----

Det Rådgivende Udvalg for Kartel- og Monopolspørgsmål afgav på sit 375. møde den 14. juni 2004 følgende udtalelse om et udkast til beslutning vedr. sag COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges/Orde van architecten belgië

(2005/C 3/02)

----

----

Udtalelse afgivet af Det Rådgivende Udvalg for Kartel- og Monopolspørgsmål på udvalgets 376. møde den 21. juni 2004 vedrørende et foreløbigt udkast til beslutning i sag COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/03)

----

----

Høringskonsulentens endelige rapport i sag COMP/38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges/Orde van architecten belgië

(udarbejdet i henhold til artikel 15 i Kommissionens afgørelse 2001/462/EF, EKSF af 23. maj 2001 om høringskonsulentens kompetenceområde under behandlingen af visse konkurrencesager (EFT L 162 af 18.6.2001, s. 21)

(2005/C 3/04)

Udkastet til beslutning giver anledning til følgende bemærkninger med hensyn til retten til at blive hørt:

Som led i en procedure, der var indledt på Kommissionens eget initiativ, sendte Kommissionen den 3. november 2003 en klagepunktsmeddelelse til Den Belgiske Arkitektsammenslutning. Af denne klagepunktsmeddelelse fremgår det, at det er i strid med konkurrencereglerne at fastsætte regler eller retningslinjer i form af en mindstetarif.

Arkitektsammenslutningen fik adgang til sagens akter den 2. december 2003.

Arkitektsammenslutningen fik en frist på 10 uger til at besvare klagepunktsmeddelelsen. Den afgav sine skriftlige bemærkninger inden for denne frist.

Med hensyn til proceduren anførte Arkitektsammenslutningen, at retten til at forsvare sig ikke fuldt ud blev respekteret, da den ikke havde fået adgang til et dokument, som GD for Konkurrence havde stemplet som »fortroligt«.

En undersøgelse viste, at dette dokument ville have gjort det muligt at identificere en person, som havde videregivet oplysninger til Kommissionen.

Dokumentet er derfor med rette blevet stemplet som »fortroligt« på baggrund af den tavshedspligt, som Kommissionen er underlagt i sådanne tilfælde.

Ifølge denne tavshedspligt skal en person, der har givet oplysninger, have garanti for, at hans anonymitet beskyttes, når personen anmoder herom og muligvis kan udsættes for trusler om repressalier (Domstolens dom af 7. november 1985 i sag 145/83, Adams/Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, præmis 34 ff.).

Den Belgiske Arkitektsammenslutning har benyttet sig af retten til at blive hørt og har anmodet om en høring, der fandt sted den 9. februar 2004.

I Kommissionens udkast fremsættes der ingen nye klager mod Arkitektsammenslutningen ud over dem, der allerede var fremsat i klagepunktsmeddelelsen.

Jeg mener derfor, at parternes ret til at blive hørt er blevet overholdt.

Bruxelles, den 16. juni 2004

Serge DURANDE

----
----

----

I Információ

Bizottság

----

Az Európai Központi Bank által a főbb pénzügyi operációknál alkalmazott kamatláb (1):

2,09 % 2005. január 1-jén

Euro átváltási árfolyamok (2)

2005. január 4.

(2005/C 2/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)  Változó árfolyam esetén a kijelölt nap előtt végrehajtott legközelebbi pénzügyi operáció árfolyamát alkalmazzák, a kamatláb a legmagasabb árfolyam szerint számítandó.

(2)

Forrás: Az Európai Központi Bank (ECB) átváltási árfolyama.

----

III Közlemények

Bizottság

----

Ajánlattételi felhívás az „Intelligens Energia-Europa” Program Keretében energia ügyi tevékenységekre (1230/2003/EK hatàrozat, 2003.6.26., közzétéve: HL L 176., 2003.7.15.)

(2005/C 2/02)

Az Európai Bizottság az „Intelligens Energia-Europa” Program Keretében ajáulattételi felhivást tesz közzé a 2004-es munkaprogramjàban. Az 1. és. 2. tipusú tevékenységekre vonatkozó ajànlatok beadási határideje 2005. március 23., a 3. típusú tevékenységekre vonatkozó ajànlatok beadàsi határideje 2005. január 31. ès 2005. május 31.

A felhívással kapcsolatos információk, valamint az ajánlattevők számára iránymutató a projektek benyújtásához az alábbi internetes címen található:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/intelligent/index_en.html

Az „Intelligens Energia-Europa” Program segitőszolgálata a TREN-Intelligentenergy@cec.eu.int e-mail cimen érhető el.

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 44265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18840]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket No. ED-2018-ICCD-0072]


2019-20 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS: 20) 
Field Test Institution Contacting and Enrollment List Collection; 
Cancellation

AGENCY: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of 
Education (ED).

ACTION: Notice of cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: On July 3, 2018, the Department of Education (ED) published a 
60 day comment period notice in the Federal Register with FR DOC #2018-
14441 (Page 31383, Column 2 and 3; Page 31384, Column 1 and 2) seeking 
public comment for an information collection entitled, ``2019-20 
National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20) Field Test 
Institution Contacting and Enrollment List Collection'' conducted by 
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Department of 
Education would like to cancel that public comment period notice. NCES 
intends to conduct the NPSAS:20 full-scale study as planned from 
October 2019 to November 2020. In March 2019, NCES will publish a 
notice in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period 
followed by a 30-day comment period for NPSAS:20 Full-Scale Institution 
Contacting and Enrollment List Collection clearance request.
    The NPSAS:20 full-scale study will use methods and survey items 
that have already been used in previous cycles of NPSAS. In addition, 
NCES is developing a cognitive testing plan that will allow pre-testing 
of a subset of questions from the planned NPSAS:20 student interview. 
NCES expects to submit a clearance request for these cognitive testing 
activities by July 2019.
    The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, 
Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management, hereby 
issues a cancellation notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Kate Mullan,
Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of 
the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-18840 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1694

ANDRES LEROY GLENN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BI-LO, CORPORATION; CHAD J. JOWERS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:12-cv-00727-CMC)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andres Leroy Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Barton Diegel, 

Peter Edward Farr, Ashley Berry Stratton, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, 

PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andres Leroy Glenn appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and 

dismissing Glenn’s civil action without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.* On appeal, we confine our review 

to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Glenn’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s disposition, Glenn has forfeited

appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. 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

 * While dismissals without prejudice generally are 

interlocutory and not appealable, Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar 

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993), a 

dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the 

complaint can cure the defect in the plaintiff’s case. Id. at 

1066-67; see Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 

(4th Cir. 2005). On the available record, we conclude that the 

defect identified by the district court cannot be cured by an 

amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is 

appealable.
Exhibit 32   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 China Complant Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.   Date:  February 20, 2011                  /s/ Yang Zhang ------------------------------- Yang Zhang, CFO
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.

 January 31, 2014

s0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147881

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147881

COA: 314743

Wayne CC: 06-012021-FC

REZA CONWELL TATUM, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### Jake Deas, Appellant, v Carson Products Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover dam*796ages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated November 1, 1989, as denied that branch of his motion which was to compel disclosure by the defendant Carson Products Company of a secret formula for "Magic Shave Cream” demanded in its notice for discovery and inspection dated September 27, 1988.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, that branch of the motion of the plaintiff which was to compel the disclosure by the defendant Carson Products Company of the secret formula for "Magic Shave Cream” is granted on condition that the plaintiff executes a stipulation of confidentiality that the formula will only be revealed to the plaintiff’s expert and the attorneys handling the matter and to no other parties, competitors or other persons; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff’s time to execute the stipulation of confidentiality and serve the same upon the respondent is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, and the respondent shall disclose the formula within 20 days after service upon it of the stipulation of confidentiality.

Although it is well established that the scope of discovery under CPLR 3101 is to be construed liberally, where discovery of trade secrets is sought, the party seeking disclosure must show that the information demanded appears to be "indispensable to the ascertainment of truth and cannot be acquired in any other way” *(Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp.,*116 AD2d 907, 909; *see also, Thomas v Soft Sheen Prod. Co.,*118 AD2d 493). Upon our review of the record at bar, we find that the plaintiff, who alleges that he sustained serious personal injuries as result of his use of the respondent’s facial depilatory cream, met his burden of establishing that access to the product’s formula is necessary to the preparation of his case. Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel disclosure of the formula is granted, upon the condition that the plaintiff execute a stipulation agreeing to keep the formula confidential. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.