alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Annual Incentive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN 
  
 The Compensation Committee has established an annual incentive bonus program that provides an opportunity to earn an annual
cash incentive award when certain corporate financial goals are achieved. Cash bonuses for executive officers are paid once a year in the year following the fiscal year for which the stated goals were met. The Committee established an incentive
compensation goal for the Company’s executive officers for the 2004 fiscal year based on earnings per share and return on equity for that year. For 2005, the Committee has established performance criteria for the Company’s executive
officers that will be based upon the Company’s earnings per share, return on equity and growth in number of customers in the year.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Performance Food Group Company:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-72400, 333-12223 and 333-78229) on Form S-8, the registration statements
(Nos. 333-24679 and 333-68877) on Form S-4 and the registration statement (No.
333-48462) on Form S-3 of Performance Food Group Company of our reports dated
March 26, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Performance Food
Group Company and subsidiaries as of December 29, 2001 and December 30, 2000,
and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended December
29, 2001, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports are
included in this Form 10-K.

Our report covering the consolidated financial statements contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 30, 2000 and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the fiscal year then ended have been
restated.

Our report covering the consolidated financial statements also refers to a
change in accounting for business combinations and goodwill and other
intangibles effective for business combinations consummated after June 30, 2001.


                                         /s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 29, 2002
#### Lena Harms, appellant, *v.*Thomas R. Hughes, respondent.

Tlie sum to be paid by a mortgagee seeking to redeem a tax title is fixed! by the charter of the Town of Union- (P. *L. of 1864 p■ 568),*and where a decree was made fixing the sum upon a different basis, upon an appeal taken by the holder of the tax title, no appeal having been taken by the mortgagee, it appearing that the sum allowed was at least as much as would have been-allowed if the charter provision for compensation had been *adopted*— Held, that there appears no ground for reversal. •

*289On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney in *Hughes*v. *Harms.*

*' Messrs. Collins & Corbin,*for the appellant.

*Messrs. Randolph, Condiet & Black,*for the respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Reed, J.

The bill was filed by a mortgagee to redeem the mortgaged premises from a tax title held by Lena Harms by assignment from the Town of Union.

A decree was made fixing the amount of money which the mortgagee was to pay to the assignee of the tax title upon such redemption.

The appeal is taken by Lena Harms for the reason that, in fixing the amount of her compensation, she has been improperly charged with rent while she was in possession under the tax title, and that she has not been allowed a sufficient sum for improvements put upon the property.

The grounds of appeal display the considerations which underlie the method of ascertaining compensation adopted in the court of chancery.

The charter of the Town of Union (P. *L. of 1864 p. 568),.*however, fixes the terms upon which a redemption of titles, purchased at tax sales made by the municipality, can be obtained. The condition imposed is the repayment of the purchase-money paid, together with any other sum paid for tax or assessment, with fifteen per cent, interest.

This express provision seems to exclude all consideration of the matter of rents or improvements in arriving at the amount of money which the mortgagee is to pay.

The mortgagee, however, has taken no appeal from the decree, so he is not in a position to complain.

The appeal is taken by the owner of the tax title, and is grounded upon the insistence that she has not been allowed as *290much as she should have been allowed under the rule for ascertaining such amount which was adopted. But it appears that she was allowed at least as much as she would have been permitted to receive under the statutory rule of compensation. She, therefore, has no ground of complaint.

Decree affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Abbett, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Lippincott, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Smith — 12.

*For reversal*— None.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-5815 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-039-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Modify the affected

potable water 

service panel 

access door

21.0 $1,785.0

0

$15,280 $17,065.00 63 $1,075,095.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,075,095

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  EXTENDING THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, last month, our Nation reached a significant 
milestone in the growth of homegrown renewable energy. The United 
States surpassed 50 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity, which 
is enough to power over 13 million American households a year. This is 
a major accomplishment for an industry predicted to deliver only a 
quarter of that amount a decade ago.
  We should be celebrating this success brought about by innovation, 
hard work, and smart policies. Sadly, the celebration may be a short 
one if Congress doesn't act swiftly to continue the bipartisan 
production tax credit, which is a key factor in wind power's expansion. 
My constituents who work at companies like Clipper Windpower and 
Infinity Wind Power have told me that letting the PTC lapse would 
devastate their industry and eliminate thousands of jobs.
  It's time to give these companies certainty by taking up a multiyear 
extension of the PTC without delay. Our country cannot afford to pull 
the rug out from under a true American success story. Let's renew the 
production tax credit now and maintain our leadership in transitioning 
to cleaner, safer sources of energy.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008285EN.01002202.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-365/08)

(2008/C 285/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage (2) provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, must be included in the assessment of the production charge? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage (2) provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, must be included in the assessment of the production charge?

1

2

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination derived from Article 34 EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination derived from Article 34 EC?

---

(1)  OJ L 58, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 78, p. 20.

2

---
#### Samuel Breiter *&*Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Ward La France Truck Corp. et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 18, 1959.

*Joseph Schwartsman*and *Benedict Ginsberg*for appellant.

*Emanuel Luria*for Ward La France Truck Corp., respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

An entry in the records of a defendant showing the amount of a trade-in allowance in a transaction is not admissible, under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act, as against third persons, to establish the reasonable value of the article traded in.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Steuer, J. P., Hofstadter and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4656 

To extend a prohibition relating to permits for discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of certain vessels. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2017 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER (for herself and Mr. KILMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To extend a prohibition relating to permits for discharges 

incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fishing and Small Ves5 sel Relief Act’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4656 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL OPERATION 

2 OF VESSELS. 

3 Section 2(a) of Public Law 110–299 (33 U.S.C. 1342 

4 note) is amended by striking ‘‘December 18, 2017’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘December 18, 2020’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2008327EN.01002002.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/20

---

Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-464/08)

(2008/C 327/34)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Simonsson and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (1), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security (1), or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 June 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       CONGRATULATING ALI BERNARD

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Ali Bernard for being 
named to the U.S. Olympic Team, and having the opportunity to compete 
in London this summer. This is an unbelievable accomplishment, and a 
testament to American dedication and talent.
  Ali has been an incredible competitor in wrestling since high school. 
From the Junior Nationals to the Pan American Games to the World 
Championships, it has all led up to becoming a two-time Olympian. Ali's 
achievement is an inspiration and a source of pride for the New Ulm 
community, and I am proud to represent such an outstanding individual.
  I look forward to watching Ali represent our country in London. I 
wish her and all the members of Team USA the best of luck in the 2012 
Olympic Games.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR A CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE SENATE AND AN 
              ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
privileged concurrent resolution:

                            S. Con. Res. 59

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any 
     day from Thursday, August 2, 2012, through Tuesday, August 7, 
     2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
     recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, September 
     10, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
     by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
     recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly 
     pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
     whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on 
     any legislative day through Thursday, August 2, 2012, through 
     Tuesday August 7, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
     concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, 
     it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 
     2012, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 
     2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
     of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and 
     the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of 
     the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such 
     place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, 
     the public interest shall warrant it.

  The concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008064EN.01005702.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/57

---

Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CAR SILHOUETTE III)

(Case T-9/08)

(2008/C 64/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, R. Jepsen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2007, notified on 9 November 2007, in appeal case R 1306/2007-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 November 2007, notified on 9 November 2007, in appeal case R 1306/2007-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark ‘CAR SILHOUETTE III’ for goods in Class 12 (international registration, designating the European Community, No W 878 349).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of protection.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to an incorrect examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to an incorrect examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion;

1

| — | Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94, namely the right to a fair hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94, namely the right to a fair hearing;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in finding the mark to be devoid of any distinctive character. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in finding the mark to be devoid of any distinctive character.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8, previously filed by NB&T Financial Group, Inc. on March 23, 1995, of our
report dated February 4, 2005 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of NB&T Financial Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 which report and financial
statements are contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and 2003.



/s/ BKD, LLPBKD, LLP




Cincinnati, Ohio

March 15, 2005



58
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT, v. MAURICE PASCAL, ALSO KNOWN AS “MUSH” PASCAL, APPELLANT.

Argued December 20, 1948

Decided January 10, 1949.

*262“Bodine, J.

The appeal' in this case is from a judgment in a summary hearing in the Atlantic County Quarter Sessions Court held in November of 1947. The charge was that the appellant was guilty of a violation of the terms of his probation. He had previously been convicted of a violation of the gambling laws of this state. On December 18, 1-946, he was released from the State Prison with a five year probation period still in force. On November 18, 1947 he was notified of proceedings to revoke the probation and the suspension of sentence.

“The proceedings were instituted under *R. S.*2:199-4, as amended, and were intended to afford the convicted man an opportunity to be heard in the summary proceedings to revoke the probation period and suspension of the sentence previously imposed.

“In compliance with the notice there was a hearing. The court, after the State offered evidence and the appellant not having seen fit to take the stand, revoked the probation and suspension of sentence, and sentenced the appellant to the State Prison for a term of not less than two and one-half years and not more than three years, and imposed a fine of $1,000.00.

“From our examination of the record, we think the proceedings were in all respects fair and designed to give the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard. We do not think *263the legislature intended to impose any particular form of procedure nor the manner of institution thereof. It is manifest that the appellant was informed of the charge and the purpose of the hearing and had a full opportunity to be heard. *State v. Pascal,*133 *N. J. L.*528.

*Mr. Harry Miller*argued the cause for the appellant *(Mr. William B. Hunter,*of counsel).

*Mr. David R. Brone*argued the cause for the respondent *(Mr. Lewis P. Scott,*Prosecutor of Atlantic County).

*We think the present appeal possésses no merit and the judgment under review should be affirmed with costs.”

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review w-ill be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine in the Court below.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling and *Ackerson—7.*

*For reversal:*None.