alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3






Exhibit 10.3




INTEGRATION BONUS PLAN




The following objectives shall be used to calculate the amount of each eligible executive’s
Annual Integration Bonus (as defined below). Eligible executives are listed below.



The Annual Integration Bonus with respect to a given fiscal year (e.g., 2005 or 2006) (the
“Bonus Determination Year”) shall be equal to the product of (i) 50% of the Target Integration
Bonus (as defined below) and (ii) the Percentage (as defined below), subject to any other
provisions of each eligible executive’s employment agreement with Penn-America Group, Inc.
(“Penn-America”), governing such Bonus (including, without limitation, provisions regarding the
payment of the Bonus in shares of United America Indemnity, Ltd.). In no instance shall any
payments hereunder to any single executive exceed $450,000 with respect to any Bonus Determination
Year. The Board of Directors of each executive’s employer shall retain the sole and exclusive
authority and discretion to administer and interpret the terms of this arrangement with respect to
each such executive, including without limitation, the determination of whether the targets and
objectives set forth below have been satisfied, and its determination and judgment shall be made in
good faith.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Penn-America Income Targets	 	 	 	 
	Pre-tax operating income of Penn-America for the
Bonus Determination Year before giving effect to any
	 	The Percentage
	transactions with Wind River Insurance Company, Ltd.
	 	Equals
	 
	 	 	 	 
	80% of the Target Income (as defined below) or less
	 	 	0	%
	Greater than 80% but less than 100% of the Target Income
	 	pro-rata (in a linear manner)
	100% of the Target Income or greater
	 	 	75	%
	The Target Income shall be equal to $36,483,000 for 2005 and $40,131,000 for 2006.

	Target Integration Bonus
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Executive
	 	Target Integration Bonus Equals

	 
	 	 	 	 
	Jon S. Saltzman
	 	$	900,000	 
	Joseph F. Morris
	 	$	780,000	 







J. Ransley Lennon $175,000



	 	 	 	 	 
	Garland P. Pezzuolo
	 	$	155,000	 
	Craig Levitz
	 	$	125,000	 
	Brian J. Riley
	 	$	165,000	 
	John D. Curry
	 	$	200,000	 
	Richard M. Slomiany
	 	$	150,000
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 60

 Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed agreement 
for cooperation between the United States and the United Arab Emirates 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2009

 Mr. Berman (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) (by request) introduced 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the approval of the Congress of the proposed agreement 
for cooperation between the United States and the United Arab Emirates 
               pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does favor 
the proposed agreement for cooperation transmitted to the Congress by 
the President on May 21, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1132 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

9) II-C-6 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 4/18/2008 2:24:46 PM Sheet 9 of 122 
P.2 

fl-U-03 JL-C-i 

A 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

APR 201987 

Honorable Beryl Anthony, Jr. OFFICEOF 

House of Representatives AIR AND RADIATION 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Anthony: 

Thank you for your letter outlining your concerns with low 

sulfur diesel fuel. EPA is presently studying the costs and 

benefits of low sulfur diesel fuel, but has not proposed any 

rules related to fuel sulfur level to date. Provisions to 

reduce sulfur levels have appeared in several acid rain bills 

introduced in Congress. Also, in response to potential 

Congressional and/or EPA action on sulfur levels, the National 

Petroleum Refiner's Association (NPRA) conducted a nationwide 

survey of their members (which would have included those in 

Arkansas) for the purpose of assessing the costs of complying 

with lower sulfur levels. The survey probably triggered the 

letters to you, even though at this point this EPA project is 

still in the study stage. 

The benefits from reducing diesel fuel sulfur levels . 

(which in the absence of requirements, are expected to increase 

over the long term) are reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide and 

sulfate aerosol, as well as reduced formations of a 

atmospherically produced sulfate and sulfuric acid which 

contribute to precipitation. Reduced fuel sulfur levels may 

also reduce diesel vehicle costs, since they may allow the use 

of less costly compliance approaches to meet more stringent, 

1991 and 1994 heavy-duty diesel particulate emission 

standards. counterbalancing these benefits is primarily a 

refinery cost, which may be larger (per gallon) for a small 

refinery than for a large one. We are looking at this 

caref-liy, and will consider the impacts on small refiners when 

making a decision about sulfur levels in diesel fuel. We will 

also be considering any impacts a reduced sulfur requirement 

will have on domestic versus import oil production and refining. 

Again, thank you for expressing your concerns. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL-SIGNED BY 

RICHARD 0. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP97-228-004]

Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on November 15, 2000:

Second Revised Sheet No. 5B.05

Original Sheet No. 5B.07

Transwestern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement a specific negotiated rate transaction in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.

Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 88 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.  All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations.  Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings.  Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene.  Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.  This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.  See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-30351  Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
AFS-12-360-E May 24, 2012

Exemption No. 9703B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0181

Mr. Harold Estes Weir Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. 1225 Airport Road Sedona, AZ 86336

Dear Mr. Weir:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9703, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On May 9, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. (Solid Edge) for an extension of Exemption No. 9703, as amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Solid Edge to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing

program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Solid Edge.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9703, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701 which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions

and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Solid Edge are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Solid Edge part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9703, as amended, to June 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Elena Markovsky v. Kirby Tower, L.P.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00516-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-03458

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellant Elena Markovsky has moved to abate this appeal to permit the trial 

court to render a final judgment. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 

2001). The motion is GRANTED. The appeal is abated and removed from this Court’s 

active docket to permit the trial court to render a final judgment. If a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing a final judgment is not received within 30 days of the date of 

this order, the appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless Markovsky moves 

to extend the abatement and an extension is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 

43.2(f); McNally, 52 S.W.3d at 196.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a final judgment is filed in this Court.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 25, 2014
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, James F. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  James F. Lynch |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| James F. Lynch           |
| Chief Executive Officer  |
|                     |
| November 14, 2003   |

 

----
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31998R1436

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1436/98 of 3 July 1998 authorising certain additives in feedingstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal L 191 , 07/07/1998 P. 0015 - 0034*

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1436/98 of 3 July 1998 authorising certain additives in feedingstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993 concerning the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition (1), as last amended by Council Directive 97/40/EC (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (3), as last amended by Commission Directive 98/19/EC (4), lays down that new additives or new additive uses may be authorised in line with advances in scientific and technical knowledge;

Whereas Directive 93/113/EC, by derogation from Directive 70/524/EEC, authorises Member States to permit provisionally the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition;

Whereas examination of the dossiers, submitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 93/113/EC, indicates that a certain number of substances in the groups of enzymes and micro-organisms can be provisionally authorised;

Whereas the Scientific Committee for animal nutrition has delivered a favourable opinion with regard to the harmlessness of these substances;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1 

The substances belonging to the group 'enzymes` and listed in Annex I to this Regulation may be authorised as additives in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 2 

The substances belonging to the group 'micro-organisms` and listed in Annex II to this Regulation may be authorised as additives in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 3 

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 July 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 334, 31. 12. 1993, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 270, 14. 12. 1970, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 96, 28. 3. 1998, p. 39.

ANNEX I 

>TABLE>

ANNEX II 

>TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos C. Charles, Also Known as Charles Carlos, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), rendered November 21, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of *6V2*to 13 years’ imprisonment for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, 2 Vi to 5 years’ imprisonment for each count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, a determinate term of one-year imprisonment for resisting arrest and a determinate term of one-year imprisonment for menacing.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the *508matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the imposition of a new sentence.

At the time of sentencing, the Supreme Court expressed its view that the maximum term of imprisonment available under the law with respect to the defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, a class C violent felony *(see,*Penal Law §§ 265.03, 70.02 [1] [b]), was *121⁄2*to 25 years. However, the maximum term of imprisonment actually available for that crime is *71⁄2*to 15 years, as the defendant was a second violent felony offender *(see,*Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [c]; § 70.02 [3] [b]; § 70.04 [3] [b]). There is no contention that the sentences imposed with respect to the lesser crimes could have been made to run consecutively *(see, People v Okafore,*72 NY2d 81).

Although the defendant did not alert the Supreme Court to its error *(see, People v Lemon,*62 NY2d 745 [similar sentencing error not reviewable as a matter of law]), and although there is no proof that the Supreme Court’s error with respect to the statutory maximum actually affected the concededly legal sentence which was imposed, we believe that the interest of justice warrants further proceedings as to sentence *(see, People v Napolitano,*157 AD2d 675). We also note that the sentence of one-year imprisonment in connection with the crime of menacing, a class "B” misdemeanor *(see,*Penal Law § 120.15) exceeds the statutory maximum *(see,*Penal Law § 70.15 [2]). The matter should, therefore, be remitted for resentencing.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### HAYS v. STATE.

No. 21388.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

*965Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s .Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted upon a charge of driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while appellant was intoxicated. Punishment was assessed at five days in jail and a fine of $50.

No statement of facts or bills of exception appear in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is

not warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons 

# Piek.QA J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas De Castroverde Law Group Parker & Edwards Hand & Sullivan, LLC Snow, Christensen & Martineau Daehnke Stevens, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A 4..t.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70868-70869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30258]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Security Advisory Committee; Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Security 
Advisory Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 7, 2000, from 10:00 a.m. to 
1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 10th floor, MacCracken 
Room, Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone 202-267-7622.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 11), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee 
to be held December 7, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., 10th floor, MacCracken Room, Washington, D.C. 
The agenda for the meeting will include: The Airport Security 
Improvement Act of 2000, Electronic Fingerprints, Checkpoint Security 
Screeners, Status of Work Groups, and Security Initiatives. The 
December 7 meeting is open to the public but attendance is limited to 
space available. Members of the public may address the committee only 
with the written permission of the chair, which should be arranged in 
advance. The chair may entertain public comment if, in its judgment, 
doing so will not disrupt the orderly progress of the meeting and will 
not be unfair to any other person. Members of the public are welcome to 
present written material to the committee at any time. Persons wishing 
to present statements or obtain information should contact the Office 
of

[[Page 70869]]

the Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, telephone 202-267-
7622.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on November 16, 2000.
William S. Davis,
Acting Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security.
[FR Doc. 00-30258 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
HHS and SAMHSA Developed Resources on Juvenile Justice and Reentry 7-28-14

Judicial Leadership oo Address
Nai lescent Mental Health Needs

http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/youth-
topics/juvenile-justice

http://www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/
microsites/trends-2014/home

REENTRY

http://www.nctsnet.org/products/think-
trauma-training-staff-juvenile-justice-
residential-settings

http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/Reentry_Coun
cil Mythbuster _Juvenile_Medicaid.pdf

Dp: ‘/gainscenter. samhsa. gov/eNews/ju
ly14.html
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Rhett, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered on December 17, 1987, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

*294Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.