alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Description of The Worthington Industries, Inc. Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.19 
  
 DESCRIPTION OF THE WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN 
  
 A basic philosophy of Worthington Industries, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”) is that regular full-time, non-union employees of the Company have a meaningful
portion of their total compensation tied to incentives, primarily profitability of the Company and/or their applicable business unit or operating location. In furtherance of this philosophy, such employees in general participate in incentive
compensation programs, such as the Company’s cash profit sharing plan and executive bonus plan, both of which have been in place since the 1960s. Cash profit sharing generally covers a majority of the Company’s employees and is computed as
a fixed percentage of operating profit of the Company and/or the relevant business unit or operating location and is shared among the participating employees. For purposes of cash profit sharing and the bonus plan, operating profit generally means
(i) operating income before profit sharing and bonus but reduced by interest expense, for business units and operating locations, and (ii) net income for total Company. 
  
 The Company’s executive officers and certain other key employees participate in an executive bonus plan
(the “Bonus Plan”). Under the Bonus Plan, bonuses are paid to participants based largely upon total Company, business unit and/or operating location performance measures primarily operating profit for the fiscal quarter. Accordingly,
improvements in quarterly operating profit on a year over year basis will result in increased bonuses, while declines in quarterly operating profit on a year over year basis will result in decreased bonuses. In general, these changes are in line
with the percentage increase or decrease in profit sharing payments under the cash profit sharing plan. While total Company, business unit or operating location operating income is the primary driver in determining the amount of a bonus, bonuses may
be adjusted up or down based on individual performance as determined by the individual’s manager, the CEO, or the Compensation and Stock Option Committee of the Worthington Industries, Inc. Board of Directors (the “Committee”), as
appropriate. Quarterly bonuses may also be paid to selected individuals pursuant to performance awards made under the 1997 LTIP based on achieving earnings per share result targets for the quarter, all as determined by the Committee. Bonuses are
determined and paid within a reasonable time after quarterly financial results have been determined, and generally account for a substantial percentage of the participant’s total cash compensation.
Order entered June 29 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00418
- CV
ANTIONETTE IRVIN
- LIN TZ, Appellant

V. DALLAS HOUSING AUTHO RITY, Appellee On Appeal from th e County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 01051
- B



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated May 29, 2018, we informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s reco rd had not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the appeal be ing ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thestatus of the reporter’s record. 1 Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted withou t a

reporter’s record. Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order

.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

1 A supplemental clerk’s record containing appellant’s affidavit of inability to pay costs filed in the justice court was filed o n June 1, 2018 at the Court’s request.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 305 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 305

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Permitting the use of the Rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
 present a gold medal on behalf of Congress to former President Ronald 
                   Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 305

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on May 16, 
2002, for a ceremony to present a gold medal on behalf of Congress to 
former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan. Physical 
preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 
such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[No. 18175-4-II.

Division Two.

July 19, 1996.]

#### Harold Lloyd King, *Appellant,*v. Joe Jack Davis, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 93-2-01288-0, Karen B. Conoley, J., entered April 11, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., Morgan, J., dissenting.
### Regu l atory Evalu a tion

Docket No. FAA

- 

# cJ,o 1£"**-1 ~fo**  Directorate Identifier:

(lyo u mak e c hongl!s 1 0 1he valu es in the !able helmr. yo u mu s t e nsur e th e LOIO!s updat e**cco rding~** **v.** 

### !( 

### they do n o t. click (or Tah ) int o am /then oul of the chang e d ce ll. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Produ ct (e
. g. , aircraft, engine , propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection , Work-hours Labo r Parts Cost Total Costs Numbe r of Total Cost

replacement) ( include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fl ee t Do not include onco ndition costs h e re access , testi ng, (@$85/h parts) R eg iste r ed and close

- up) our) P roducts 

### Crack in spection on the front face of th e third stage turbine 5 .0 $0 

### 9 wheel between two balan c ing plugs

T h e known number of products in com_Qliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3 , 825 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ On-Co ndition Cos ts : Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cos t Cost per Product (inc lude acc ess, (@$85/hour) (e.g. , Inspection , testi ng, and clo se-

rep lace ment) up)

### S pecial c on s iderations for Eco nomic Ana lys is (Use th is field to explain anythin g in th e Estim ated Cos t s table that was assumed o r might not be obvious. This field can also be used to exp lain warranty cos t s): 

### Exec utiv e Order 12866 : Cou ld th e A D be co n s id e r ed a "s ign ifi cant regulatory ac ti o n "? 

# 0

* Exp lanati on: 

### DOT R eg ulatory Policies and Procedures: f s t he AD s ig nificant ?

# ~ *Exp lanatio n : 

### Regu l a tory F lex ibility Act : Y ES * 

# D**NO~**

YES*0**NO~**

Wi ll the AD h ave a sign ificant econo mic impact on a s ub s tantia l number of s mall enti ti es? Explain for eithe r a Ye s o r No answer.

# ~ YES O**NO~** Explanation: 

### Intrastate Av i atio n in A laska : Th i s A D could affect intrastate aviatio n in Alaska. I s it app r opriate to in cl ude s pecifi c requirement s fo r a ircraft ope ra te d in A l aska whe r e av i ati on migh t be t he o nl y mode of trans p ortation?

# ~ YES*0**NO~** *Expla nati on:
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer of GFI Group Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James A. Peers, ChiefFinancial 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, thatto my knowledge:

 

1.                 The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:November 8, 2007

 
| /s/ JAMES  A. PEERS        |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| James  A. Peers            |   |
| *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |

 

----
Order for Extension of Time - p age 1 of 1

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA- 23 - 0247 DANIEL BRIAN BURKE, Appellant/Defendant, v. BILLY ANN MERILA, Appellee/Plaintiff. ORDER UPON MOTION of the Appellant, with no objection from the Appellee, and with good cause appearing; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for the filing of Appellant’s Opening Brief is extended, with the new deadline for filing being August 11, 2023.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 12 2023

07/12/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0247
I am filing for a Section 333 exemption for a DJI Phantom unmanned aircraft. I agree to the terms for 

applying for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.

I will stay below 200 feet, and the drone weighs less than 55 pounds, operate during daytime Visual 

Flight Rules conditions, and operate within visual line of sight.

I will stay 5 nautical miles away from an airport with an operational control tower, or 3 nautical miles 

from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an operational tower, or 2 nautical 

miles from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower, or 2 

nautical miles from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure.
ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OFCOMPLIANCE

OF

SCP SERVICING, LLC

 

 

**BBCMS Mortgage Trust2021-C11**

**Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 2021-C11**

 

 

I, Vartan Derbedrossian, the ChiefServicing Officer of SCP Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,as Special Servicer and a Reporting Servicer (hereinafter the “ReportingServicer”), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Pooling andServicing Agreement”) dated as of September 1, 2021, certify pursuant toSection 11.09 to the Certificate Administrator, the Trustee, and the Depositor(as those terms are defined in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) all of thefollowing as of March 2, 2023:

 

(a) that a review of theactivities of the Reporting Servicer during the period from 1/1/2022 to12/31/2022 (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under thisPooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;

 

(b) that, to the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Reporting Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects during the Reporting Period;

 

(c) that the ReportingServicer has maintained an effective internal control system over the servicingof mortgage loans; and

 

(d) that the ReportingServicer has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challenge tothe status of any Trust REMIC as a REMIC, from the IRS or any othergovernmental agency or body.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thisCertificate has been executed and is effective as of March 2, 2023.

 

 

REPORTING SERVICER:

 

**SCP Servicing LLC,**

a Delaware limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By: /s/ Vartan Derbedrossian

Name: Vartan Derbedrossian

Title: Chief Servicing Officer
Page 1 of 1

Meeting Summary: Triclosan Surface Water Modeling and Monitoring 

November 15, 2011, 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM 

Room S-8100, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 

Participants

Microban International, Ltd.: Neil K. Snyder 

The Accord Group: Pat Quinn 

Environ: Ranjit Machado, Michael Beyer* 

Toxrac: Martin Bernstein 

EPA: Nader Elkassabany, Jim Breithaupt, Donna Randall*, Tim Leighton, Bill Erickson, 

Najm Shamim, Mark Hartman, Lance Wormell, Rebecca von dem Hagen 

*participated via conference call 

Summary

On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 the Antimicrobials Division hosted a meeting with 

Microban International, Ltd., the technical registrant of triclosan, to discuss the protocol 

developed by Environ (for Microban) for the surface water monitoring study required by 

the post-RED Data Call-In (DCI) issued in October 2011. Through the DCI, the Agency 

is asking the registrant to conduct sampling of effluent waters from textile factories 

where triclosan is used. The registrant proposes to conduct sampling at the only 2 

facilities in the country with NPDES permits for direct discharge of treated process 

effluents to water bodies. During the meeting, the registrant provided background on the 

development of the protocol and AD offered input on the current study design. 

Next Steps

Microban will respond to the Agency’s comments on the protocol and the Agency will 

send the registrant additional clarification on questions that arose during the meeting. 

The registrant hopes to begin sampling within the next month.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                                    
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ PAUL E. BERGER, M.D.
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                    |  | Paul E. Berger, M.D.                                               
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                   |  | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
CERTIFICATION

      I, Carey G. Birmingham, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of College Oak
Investments, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such disclosure and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.

<PAGE>

      6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 15, 2005                           /s/ Carey G. Birmingham
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name:  Carey G. Birmingham
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI GroupInc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Gooch,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

1.                 The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:August 9, 2010

 
| /s/  MICHAEL GOOCH         |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Michael  Gooch             |     |
| *Chairman  of the Board*   | * * |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |

* *

----
#### DYNA SPAN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Hearing Officer Arnold H. POLLOCK, Division of Administrative Hearings, Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent. DYNA SPAN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. The Honorable John D. WESSEL, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

Nos. 4-86-1762, 4-86-1763.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 30, 1986.

Peter M. Feaman, of Marchbanks & Fea-man, P.A., Boca Raton, for petitioner.

Susan Koch Stafford and Lisa S. Santuc-ci, Dept, of Ins., Tallahassee, for respondent — Pollock.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Shirley A. Walker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent — -Wessel.

LETTS, Judge.

Dyna Span Corporation filed petitions of writs of mandamus and prohibition.

The petitions reflect that the Department of Insurance filed an administrative complaint against Dyna Span for transacting insurance as an agent for an unauthorized insured in violation of section 626.901(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Thereafter, Dyna Span brought an action against the Department of Insurance in the circuit court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged that federal law preempted the statute relied on by the Department of Insurance and as such, the filing of the administrative complaint is unconstitutional as violative of the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Because the trial court decided not to consider the constitutional issues, Dyna Span filed petitions for mandamus against the circuit court and for prohibition against the administrative hearing officer in this court. We grant these petitions.

The relevant issue is whether the circuit court must address the constitutional question of federal preemption. In *E.T. Legg & Co. v. Franza,*383 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), a case with facts similar to the case sub judice, this court held that when a party raises a proper constitutional question, the circuit court should proceed with the determination of that issue and stay the administrative proceeding. In view of the gravity of the issue before the circuit court, we conclude that the circuit court should proceed with a determination of that question prior to the administrative proceeding.

Accordingly, we grant the petition for mandamus and note that the Department of Insurance should be allowed to intervene in this matter. We also grant the petition *308for prohibition staying the administrative hearing until the circuit court disposes of the constitutional issues.

ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
#### Duane Eugene OWEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-1371.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 24, 1989.

Duane Eugene Owen, Stark, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This court has jurisdiction. *See Johnson v. State,*543 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 4 DCA 1989) issued this date en banc. We affirm but remand with direction to strike the assessment of costs if imposed.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur.