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

        Summary of Compensation for President and Chief Operating Officer
                            of Cheniere Energy, Inc.

     Like all of the executive officers of Cheniere Energy, Inc., the President
and Chief Operating Officer, is an "at will" employee and does not have an
employment or severance agreement. The unwritten arrangement under which our
President and Chief Operating Officer is compensated includes:

     o    a salary, reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee;

     o    eligibility for a discretionary annual cash bonus, as determined by
          the Compensation Committee;

     o    eligibility for awards under Cheniere's 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, as
          determined by the Compensation Committee;

     o    health, life, disability and other insurance and/or benefits;

     o    vacation, paid sick leave and all other employee benefits.


         The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors has established an
annual base salary of $400,000 for our President and Chief Operating Officer
after a review of competitive market data. The Compensation Committee intends to
make two option grants to Mr. Horton, effective April 18, 2005: 150,000 options
at the closing market price on April 18, 2005 to vest equally on the first four
anniversary dates of the date of grant, and 150,000 options at the closing
market price on April 18, 2005 to vest equally on the fourth, fifth and sixth
anniversary dates of the date of grant.
#### In the Matter of Ardon II., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Nelson, J.), entered June 6, 1990, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, adjudicated respondent a person in need of supervision.

Family Court accepted the 14-year-old respondent’s admission that he had stolen numerous items from a local department store. Implementing an agreement entered into by counsel, the court thereupon substituted a person in need of supervision finding for a juvenile delinquency adjudication. Following a dispositional hearing, respondent was placed with petitioner pending placement in family care.

Respondent argues on appeal that he should have been afforded a mental examination. Such an examination is mandatory whenever the court "is of the opinion that the respondent may be an incapacitated person” (Family Ct Act § 322.1 [1]). An incapacitated person is one who, because of mental illness, mental retardation or developmental disability, lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense (Family Ct Act § 301.2 [13]). Inasmuch as there are repeated indications in the record that respondent was mentally retarded, brain damaged and unable to understand the court proceedings, Family Court should have ordered a mental examination even though not requested by respondent or the Law Guardian.

Remitting for this purpose is not an exercise in slavish adherence to procedure, for the outcome of the examination will bear on the disposition to which respondent can properly *356be subjected. If incapacity was to be found and there was probable cause to believe that respondent committed a misdemeanor, he would be committed to the custody of either the Commissioner of Mental Health or the Commissioner of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, as may be appropriate, for a period not to exceed 90 days and the juvenile delinquency petition would be dismissed *(see,*Family Ct Act § 322.2 [4]). In contrast, here Family Court placed respondent in the custody of petitioner for 18 months.

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Family Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision.
Notice of Non Qualified Stock Option Grant, as amended



 Exhibit 10(p) 
  
 WAL*MART STORES 
 Stock Incentive Plan 
 Notice of Non Qualified Stock Option Grant 
  

					
	Name	 	Social Security Number	 	Department
			
	«Name»	 	«Social»	 	«Department»

  

							
	Grant Date	 	Shares Granted	 	Price per Share	 	Expiration Date
				
	«GrantDate»	 	«SharesGranted»	 	«PricePerShare»	 	«ExpirationDate»

  
 Grant of Option: You have been
granted an option to purchase up to the above-designated number of shares of Common Stock of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (“Shares”) at the designated price per Share, on or before the designated Expiration Date, subject to the terms of the
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan of 1998, as amended from time to time. Capitalized terms used in the notice have the same meanings as in the Plan. 
  
 Vesting. This Option shall cumulatively vest and become exercisable as follows, except that no Options shall vest after you cease to be an associate of the company
for any reason whatsoever other than on account of death in which case all Options shall immediately vest. The unexercised portion of each vested installment may be accumulated from year to year. 
  

			
	 Shares Vesting

	  	Date


	 «Vest1»
	  	«Date1»
	 «Vest2»
	  	«Date2»
	 «Vest3»
	  	«Date3»
	 «Vest4»
	  	«Date4»
	 «Vest5»
	  	«Date5»
		
	 «TotalShrGranted»
	  	Total

  
 Time to Exercise Vested
Options: You may exercise all or any portion of your vested Options only (i) while you are employed by the Company, or (ii) within 3 months after termination of employment, or (iii) within one year after death if you die before otherwise
terminating employment or within 3 months thereafter. However, in no event shall this Option be exercisable (a) after the Expiration Date, (b) during any administrative suspension, or (c) if your employment was terminated for cause. 
  
 Payment of Exercise Price: You must pay the Option price in full in any one or a
combination of the following, subject to the approval of the Committee: (i) through a broker-dealer selected by you to whom you have submitted an irrevocable exercise notice including an irrevocable instruction to deliver the Option price promptly
to the Company by check or wire transfer; (ii) by cash, check, or wire transfer; or (iii) in unencumbered Shares which you have held for at least 6 months. 
  
 Tax Withholding: The Company’s required federal, state and local tax withholding must be satisfied when you exercise an Option by any one or a combination of
the following means: (i) by cash, check, or wire transfer; (ii) withholding of Shares otherwise deliverable to you as a result of the exercise of an Option; or (iii) in unencumbered Shares, which have been held for at least six months. All Shares
shall be valued at their Fair Market Value as of the date the withholding tax obligation arises. 
  
 Successors Bound by this Notice: This Notice and the terms of the Plan bind you and your heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 
  
 Arkansas Law Governs this Notice: This Notice shall be governed by and interpreted according to Arkansas law.
# C_2008313EN.01004401.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/44

---

Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v Commission

(Case T-427/08)

(2008/C 313/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d'Horlogers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008 by which the Commission rejected, for lack of Community interest, the applicant's complaint regarding the alleged violations of Article 81 and 82 EC in connection with the watch manufacturers' refusal to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers [Case C(2008) 3600].

In support of its claims the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the Treaty by deforming the applicant's complaint and thus, using materially incorrect facts in its decision.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission committed errors in law and infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by deciding that the watch manufacturers complained of didn't held a dominant position and that their refusal to sell spare parts outside the selective distribution system didn't constitute an abuse of their dominant position. The applicant also contests the Commission's conclusions that there were agreements or concerted practices between watch manufacturers.

The applicant contends that the Commission misused its power by using the argument of lack of Community interest after a four-year investigation of the applicant's complaint.

Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to state reasons thereby infringing Article 253 EC.

Finally, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission infringed the principle of impartiality in investigating its complaint.

---
# 2008 - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the poverty rate in each of the ARC counties. The post Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the poverty rate in each of the ARC counties, as a percentage of the U.S. average. The post Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the high school completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties. The post High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the high school completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties, as a percentage of the U.S. average. The post Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the college completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties. The post College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Relative College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 This map shows the college completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties, as a percentage of the U.S. average.The post Relative College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 This map shows the college completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties. The post College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Relative College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 This map shows the college completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties, as a percentage of the U.S. average. The post Relative College Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 This map shows the high school completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties. The post High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 This map shows the high school completion rate of persons ages 25 and over in each of the ARC counties, as a percentage of the U.S. average.The post Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2005–2009 appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2010317EN.01002802.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Granuband v OHIM — Granuflex (GRANUflex)

(Case T-534/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GRANUflex - Previous company name and business name GRANUFLEX - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 317/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Granuband BV (Krommenie, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ellens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1277/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Granuflex Ipari és Kereskedelmi Kft and Granuband BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Granuband BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Granuband BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 21.2.2009.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01005302.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/53

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — CLL Centres de Langues v Commission

(Case T-202/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 285/95)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-30344 and 333-51430) and on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-73904, 333-55978, 333-53446, 333-32096, 333-32092 and 333-65923) of Hanover
Compressor Company of our report dated March 8, 2000, except as to the stock
split described in Note 16 which is as of June 14, 2000, and except for Notes 18
and 19, as to which the dates are February 1, 2001 and November 18, 2002,
respectively relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Houston, Texas
December 23, 2002
July 24, 2015

Mr. Andrew O’Fee

Senior Loan Originator

Crump Mortage

8126 Meadow View Glen Drive

Germantown, TN 38138

Dear Mr. O’Fee:

This is in response to your April 30, 2015, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2015-1355) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). You requested to conduct aerial videography, photography,

and cinematography using an unmanned aerial system.

The information you submitted did not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81. On 

June 1, 2015, the FAA sent you a letter stating that we were unable to process your request 

without further information. Specifically, we asked you to provide the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

On July 24, 2015, the FAA received additional information. The FAA has reviewed the 

information and finds that you did not provide the sections from which you seek relief and 

why granting the request would be in the public interest.
2

Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed your 

exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information please resubmit 

your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director

Office of Rulemaking
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐330/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/35/EC – Environmental liability – Prevention and remedying of environmental damage – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 15)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56). |

**Operative part**

The Court

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair 
announces to the House that, in light of the resignation of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the whole number of the House 
is 430.

                          ____________________
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHONGJIN XU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72452

Agency No. A201-060-117

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings is granted.

Chongjin Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s

FILED

DEC 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

The agency found Xu not credible based on internally inconsistent evidence,

inconsistencies between her testimony and application, and on vague, confusing,

and non-responsive testimony. We lack jurisdiction to review Xu’s contention that

the agency should have considered the eleven-month gap between her immigration

hearings in assessing her credibility. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the

agency). Apart from this contention, Xu does not raise any substantive challenge

to the agency’s adverse credibility findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d

1256, 1259 (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are

deemed abandoned.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 13-72452
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Turner, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deeley, J.), rendered October 31, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
|   | (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 21, 2006 |   | /s/ Nyhl              Henson                              |
|                                      |   | Nyhl              Henson, Chief Executive              Officer |
exv10w6



 











EXHIBIT 10.6




SUMMARY OF INFORMAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS TO ALBERT

MCALISTER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS




     Beginning in January 2001, in further consideration for his services as a member of the Board
of Directors, The Shaw Group Inc. (the “Company”) has provided family health insurance benefits
under the Company’s health insurance program to Mr. Albert McAlister and his family members. The
Company’s health coverage is self-insured up to certain annual individual and plan limits and the
Company maintains insurance coverage for the excess. All premiums for such health insurance are
paid by the Company.



     During the 2004 calendar year, the Company paid health insurance claims for Mr. McAlister and
his family members totaling $1,128. The premiums for such insurance for the calendar year 2005 are
$808.90 per month.