alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.6.1**

 

**Incentive and Retention Program**

 

Under the Company’s Incentive and Retention Program adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company on May 19, 2003, certain employeesand officers and the contracted corporate counsel of the Company are entitled to receive a bonus, based upon such individual’s pro rata portion of the stock options granted to such individual on or around May 22, 2003, (i) within thirty days ofcompletion of the sale of all or substantially all of the assets or stock of the business of the Company or a merger of the Company with another company pursuant to which the consideration per share received by the Company’s shareholders meetscertain thresholds described in the program, or (ii) within thirty days of the completion of a secondary underwritten public offering pursuant to which the proceeds received by the Company and offering price of the common stock meets certainthresholds described in the program. The maximum aggregate bonus payable by the Company under the program is $2,236,962. Under the program, if the Company’s Board of Directors determines in its discretion that the Company is unable to payapplicable bonus awards in cash, it shall pay such awards in securities of the Company’s stock before the transaction, or in the purchaser’s stock thereafter, or substantially similar securities. 

 

**Annual Incentive Bonuses**

 

On March 26, 2003 the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of PlanVistaCorporation adopted Annual Incentive Bonus targets for each of its senior officers in keeping with the Company’s annual bonus compensation practices. The senior officers of the Company are entitled to receive a cash bonus based on certainfinancial, business and personal goals as set forth in each individual senior officer’s 2003 Annual Incentive Planning Worksheet. The Board of Directors reserved the right to pay 20% of the senior officers’ bonuses in registered shares ofCompany Common Stock. As disclosed in the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Compensation Committee approved bonuses for Messrs. Dingle and Markle in the event of a change of control of the Company. InNovember 2003 the Compensation Committee approved an additional $150,000 bonus to Mr. Dingle in connection with a change of control under certain specified circumstances. 

 

The Company also awards Annual Incentive Bonuses for certain employees of the Company, based on specified financial, business and personalgoals set forth in each individual employee’s 2003 Annual Incentive Planning Worksheet. 

 

23
# Official Journal C 376/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.376.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 376 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 556 December 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.376.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 376

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 556 December 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 376/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6705 — Procter & Gamble/Teva Pharmaceuticals OTC II) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 376/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6705 — Procter & Gamble/Teva Pharmaceuticals OTC II) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 376/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2012/C 376/03 | No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement | 3 |
| 2012/C 376/04 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 4 |
| 2012/C 376/05 | No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement | 5 |
| 2012/C 376/06 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 6 |
| 2012/C 376/07 | Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 376/02

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2012/C 376/03

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

3

2012/C 376/04

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

4

2012/C 376/05

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

5

2012/C 376/06

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

6

2012/C 376/07

Notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 376/08 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 8 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 376/08

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-117-AD

Executive Order 12866:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

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 ( ) explain NO (X)
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2015

CONTACT: Rob Friedlander, Treasury Public Affairs, (202) 622-2960

FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2015

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew today convened a meeting of the 

Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in executive and open sessions at the Treasury 

Department. 

During the executive session, the Council discussed the ongoing annual reevaluation of its 

designation of a nonbank financial company, including the review of materials submitted by the 

company, discussions with the company, and consultations with relevant state and federal 

regulatory agencies. No votes were taken during the executive session.

During the open session, the Council discussed its ongoing assessment of potential risks to U.S. 

financial stability from asset management products and activities. Staff provided the Council 

with an update on the analysis, which is currently focusing on six categories: liquidity and 

redemption risk; leverage; securities lending; data and disclosure; operational risks of service 

provider concentrations; and resolvability and transition planning. The Council also received a 

presentation regarding two recently proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rulemakings 

that relate to areas under review by the Council. Secretary Lew noted that the Council expects to 

provide a public update on its analysis early next year.

The Council also received an update regarding work by Council member agencies on 

cybersecurity, particularly steps that the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure 

Committee has taken to address the cybersecurity-related recommendations made by the Council 

in its 2015 annual report. 

Finally, the Council voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on September 21. 

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting 

minutes are available at http://www.fsoc.gov. 

###
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                                       1
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our report dated
February 18, 2000 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and
schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, included in Pre-Effective Amendment No.
1 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-32110) and related Prospectus
of Privilege Select.


                                             Ernst & Young LLP


Des Moines, Iowa
July 27, 2000

                                       2
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 417 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.417

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                            Joint Resolution

  
 
  Providing for temporary extension of the application of the final 
paragraph of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act with respect to the 
dispute between the Soo Line Railroad Company and certain of its 
employees.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROHIBITION.

    The final paragraph of section 10 of the Railway Labor Act (45 
U.S.C. 160) shall apply and be extended through February 28, 1995, with 
respect to the dispute referred to in Executive Order No. 12925 of 
August 29, 1994. During this extension period no change, except by 
agreement, shall be made by the rail carrier, the Soo Line Railroad 
Company, or by the employees of such carrier represented by the United 
Transportation Union, in the conditions out of which the dispute arose 
as such conditions existed before July 14, 1994.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ERIC JACKSON, ALARIC STONE, and )

MICHAEL MARCENELLE, on behalf of ) 

themselves and all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00825-P 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

v. ) 

 )

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, in his official ) 

capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, ) 

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his ) 

official capacity as Secretary of Defense, )

LINDA L. FAGAN, in her official ) 

capacity as Commandant of the Coast Guard, and ) 

BRIAN K. PENOYER, in his official capacity ) 

as Assistant Commandant for Human ) 

Resources of the Coast Guard, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a corrected Brief 

Opposing Transfer, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for leave is GRANTED. The 

corrected brief attached to Plaintiffs’ motion for leave is deemed filed as of the date of this 

Order, and the clerk will file a copy of the corrected brief. 

SO ORDERED on this ____ day of ______ 2022. 

 __________________________________ 

 Mark T. Pittman 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 34-2 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1048
### NUMBER 13

- 1 2

- 00 03 4 0

- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A.B.R

. , A.L.A., A.L.A., A.J. R ., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 430 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, S.R. 1 , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 430 th
District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CW

- 034

- 11

- J

. On June 26,
2012 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on May 29, 2012 , and that the deputy district clerk, Aida Villarreal , had

1 In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure require the use of an alias to refer to a minor, A and if necessary to protect the minor = s identity, to the minor = s parent or other family member. ” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.2

notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant has failed to respond to this Court = s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 19th day of July , 201 2

.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1764/2006

of 30 November 2006         

fixing the export refunds on malt

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on malt listed in Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 30 November 2006 fixing the export refunds on malt

----
# Appendix A

&F - &A

# Appendix B

&F - &A
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

 

UNITED STATES CODE)

 

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of NeoPharm, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that:

 

(1)               the10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               theinformation contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2003 | /s/  James M. Hussey    |   |
|---------------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                      | James M.  Hussey,            |   |
|                      | Chief  Executive Officer     |   |
|                      |                         |   |
| Dated:  May 15, 2003 | /s/  Lawrence A. Kenyon |   |
|                      | Lawrence A.  Kenyon,         |   |
|                      | Chief  Financial Officer     |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY FISHER BUTLER, JR., a/k/a Gregory Fisher Butler,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00169-FDW-4)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Fisher Butler, Jr., appeals the district 

court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion 

for sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Butler, No. 3:00-cr00169-FDW-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 2012). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Aubrey, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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.

| |                                       
| | --------------------------------------
| | /s/ Kenneth R. Aubrey                 
| | Kenneth R. Aubrey                     
| | President and Chief
 Executive Officer
| | August 9, 2010                        

---
Agenda -- August 2008 Refunding - DRAFT 

Treasury Dealer Meetings Thursday July 24, 2008 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 p.m. Wednesday, 

July 23 to Debt.Management@do.treas.gov and Scott.Sherman@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not 

scheduled to meet with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

Low/High 

July-September / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

October-December / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

FY 2008 / 

FY 2009 / 

FY 2010 / 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

10-year note / 

30-year bond / 

10-year reopening / 

2-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / 

5-year note (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

10-year TIPS Reopening / / / / - / / 

5-year TIPS Reopening / 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates

Treasury Bills to be issued Aug-Nov / 

Treasury Bills to be issued FY 2009 / 

52-week bill sizes (Aug/Sept/Oct) / / / / - / / 

CMB(s) to be issued (size(s), date(s)) / / / / 

Please provide your estimates in the format provided above with central estimates followed by low/high estimates for each issue. 

Discussion Topics 

1. Given Treasury’s objective of lowest cost of financing over time and its available tools, 

including changing auction sizes, auction frequency of coupons, and/or securities, how would 

you suggest Treasury best approach its financing needs in the coming years? 

2. What is your perspective on shorter-dated versus longer-dated TIPS issuance and its impact on 

Treasury’s overall cost of borrowing? 

3. Subsequent to the dislocations that emerged in the credit markets nearly one year ago, the 

Federal Reserve introduced a variety of liquidity tools such as the Term Auction Lending 

Facility (TAF), and other temporary facilities including the Term Securities Lending Facility 

(TSLF) and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) to aid in the return to the smooth 

functioning of these markets. In addition, while not expected to be used, the Treasury and the 

Federal Reserve recently announced initiatives regarding the housing Government Sponsored 
Enterprises. Treasury would like your views on the impact of these actions on credit market 

conditions, and in particular, your perception of market liquidity and the potential implications 

for Treasury debt issuance.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-049-AD

Executive Order 12866:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

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 ( ) explain NO (X)