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



Exhibit 10.18
 AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
 CLASS A COMMON STOCK
 NOTICE OF NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION GRANT
WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM TO
 
 You have been granted an option to purchase Class A Common Stock of Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc. (the Company) as follows:
 Option NumberDate of GrantNumber of SharesOption Price Per Share
    
    $Term/Expiration Date
    
    Earlier of 10 years from the Date of Grant or 90 days of termination of
employment for any reason other than Retirement.Vesting Schedule
    
    60% as of the date that is three years after the Date of Grant, and 20%
annually on each anniversary of the Date of Grant thereafter, or earlier in certain
events as expressly provided in the Stock Option Agreement and 1997 Stock Incentive
Plan.Exercise Schedule
    
    Options may be exercised on or after the date of vesting and until the
expiration date.
 By your signature and the signature of the Companys representative below, you and the Company
agree that this option is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Companys
1997 Stock Incentive Plan and the Stock Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a
part of this document.
 AFFILIATED
COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.

    
    
    
    OPTIONEE:BY:WILLIAM L. DECKELMAN, JR.
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
& GENERAL COUNSEL




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM
       Grant of Option




---



##### 



Defined Terms
     Optionees Tax Indemnity
    Payment of Employers NICs




---



##### 



Exercise of Option
 Right to Exercise
      Method of Exercise




---



##### 



Method of Payment
 Restrictions on Exercise
 Termination of Employment
 Death of Optionee
 Termination for Cause
 Vesting of Option Upon Change of Control




---



##### 



Non-Transferability of Option.
 Term of Option
 Tax Consequences
  Exercise of Options
 Disposal of Shares
 Protection of Personal Data.




---



##### 



Relationship with Contract of Employment.
#### Bateman v. Sisson.

1. Appeal: broke justice’s oourt: amount in controversy. Plaintiff, in justice’s court, claimed to recover $100, but he recovered judgment for $20 only, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court. Before the appeal, however, plaintiff filed with the justice a paper withdrawing his claim for $100, and claiming only $20. *Held*that the effect of this paper was to reduce the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, to less than $25, and that an appeal to the circuit court would not lie. (Code, § 3575; *Milner v. Gross,*66 Iowa, 252.)

*Appeal from, Delaware Circuit Court.*

Wednesday, December 22.

This action was brought before a j ustice of the peace, and judgment was rendered against defendant, who appealed to the circuit court, where his appeal was dismissed. He now appeals to this court.

*Blair dk*Norris, for appellant.

*J. H. Trewin*and *'Yoran <&*Arnold, for appellee.

BecK, J.

I. The plaintiff, 'upon the commencement of his action before the justice of the peace, claimed to recover $100. Judgment was rendered against defendant for $20. Afterwards, and before the appeal, plaintiff filed a paper called a “remittitur,” withdrawing his claim for $100, and claiming only the sum of $20, and remitting his claim for any sum above that amount. In the circuit court the appeal was dismissed, on the ground that it was not authorized by the statute; (Code, § 3575;) the amount in controversy being less than $25. The cause was sent here on the certificate of the judge of the circuit court, the amount involved in the action being less than $100.

II. Whatever name may be given to the paper filed by the plaintiff before the justice of the peace after the rendition of judgment, its effect was to reduce the claim of plaintiff *519to $20. Upon the appeal, bad it been authorized by law, plaintiff could have recovered no greater sum. Indeed, his claim, if it were valid for a larger sum, in no action or proceeding could be recovered beyond the sum of $20. He voluntarily cut off, by filing the paper, all right to demand judgment for any sum beyond $20. The pleadings in the case must be regarded as restricted by this paper to a claim for $20. After it was filed, the amount in controversy was $20, and no more. An appeal was therefore not authorized. Code, § 3575. See *Milner v.*Gross, 66 Iowa, 252.

The circuit court rightly dismissed the appeal.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25311]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 539 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-162, K2025-160.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25311 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925660
<NAME> NANOTECH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,282
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,528)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  44
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (44)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (44)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF STEVEN 

GENE BERRY TO THE BAR OF 

MARYLAND

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 18

 September Term, 2023 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for reinstatement of Steven Gene Berry and Bar 

Counsel’s response to the petition for reinstatement, it is this 15th day of December 2023, 

by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that the petition is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Steven Gene Berry is reinstated as a member of the Bar of 

Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name Steven Gene Berry

upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that fact to 

the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this 

State. 

 

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader

 Chief Justice
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

 

For Immediate Release July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: The Presidential POWER Initiative: Protecting

Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment

Each year Federal civilian employees are injured or fall ill on 

the job in significant numbers. Although the Federal Government 

has made progress in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses 

in recent years, its workers (excluding those employed by the 

U.S. Postal Service) still filed more than 79,000 new claims 

and received over $1.6 billion in workers' compensation payments 

in fiscal year 2009. Many of these work-related injuries 

and illnesses are preventable, and executive departments and 

agencies can and should do even more to improve workplace safety 

and health, reduce the financial burden of injury on taxpayers, 

and relieve unnecessary suffering by workers and their families.

Therefore, I am establishing a 4-year Protecting Our Workers 

and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) Initiative, covering fiscal 

years 2011 through 2014. The POWER Initiative will extend prior 

workplace safety and health efforts of the Federal Government 

by setting more aggressive performance targets, encouraging the 

collection and analysis of data on the causes and consequences 

of frequent or severe injury and illness, and prioritizing 

safety and health management programs that have proven effective 

in the past.

Under the POWER Initiative, each executive department and agency 

will be expected to improve its performance in seven areas:

(i) reducing total injury and illness case rates;

(ii) reducing lost time injury and illness case rates;

(iii) analyzing lost time injury and illness data;

(iv) increasing the timely filing of workers'

compensation claims;

(v) increasing the timely filing of wage-loss claims;

(vi) reducing lost production day rates; and

(vii) speeding employees' return to work in cases of

serious injury or illness.

more

(OVER)
2

Executive departments and agencies (except the U.S. Postal 

Service) shall coordinate with the Department of Labor's 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Office of

Workers' Compensation Programs to establish performance targets 

in each category. The Secretary of Labor shall lead the POWER 

Initiative by measuring both Government-wide and agency-level 

performance and reporting to me annually.

Each executive department and agency shall bear its own costs 

for participating in the POWER Initiative, and nothing in this 

memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the 

authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any 

right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or in equity by any party against the United States, its 

departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, 

or agents, or any other person.

The Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to publish 

this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7025 WALTER W. MCDANIEL, Claimant-Appellee,

v. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant. ON MOTION Before RADER, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R The Secretary of Veterans Affairs mo ves without opposition to stay proceedings in this appeal pending the court’s disposition of Mlechick v. Nicholson , 2006-7362. The court considers whether the parties should be directed to respond concerning whether the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should be summarily affirmed.
In Mayfield v. Nicholson , 444 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006), we held that: [T]he duty of affirmative notification [as to the evidence that is needed and who shall be responsible for providing it] is not satisfied by various postdecisional communications from whic h a claimant might have been able to infer what evidence the VA found lacking in the claimant’s presentation . . . . [S]ection 5103 requires the VCAA notification to be issued prior to the initial decision on the claim, not afterwards. In the decision on appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, determini ng that “the Board re lied on decisional and post decisional documents to support its conc lusion that VA had satisfied its duty-to-notify obligations.” It appears that the Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly determined that remand was required pursuant to Mayfield

. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to stay is held in abeyance. (2) The parties are directed to respond concerning whether t he decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims should be summarily affirmed. (3) The briefing schedule is temporarily stayed.

February 15, 2007 /s/ Randall R. Rader Date Randall R. Rader Circuit Judge cc: Allan T. Fenley, Esq. Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Esq.
s17

2007-7025 2
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G34, Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Vishakha Sharma, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G34, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-761-7036,                         *vishakha.sharma@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 22, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-24975 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**EXHIBIT32.2**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

     Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

     The Annual Report onForm 10-K for year ended December 31, 2010**(the “Report”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

** **

|              |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| February 22, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Joseph Macnow |
|              |   | Name:  | Joseph Macnow |
|              |   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|              |   |   |   |   |

 

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00136-CV

DAVID DEAN DAWSON AND 

ELIZABETH TORRES

APPELLANTS

AND APPELLEES

V.

FAYE DIAN LIPHAM APPELLEE

AND APPELLANT

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

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-20042-158

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

We have considered the “Motion to Dismiss Cross-Appeal” filed by Faye 

Dian Lipham. Because it will not prejudice the remaining parties, we grant 

Lipham’s motion and dismiss her notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(b). 

The appeal filed by David Dean Dawson and Elizabeth Torres remains pending, 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

and Lipham’s request to assess costs against Dawson and Torres will be carried 

with the case. 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and SUDDERTH, J. 

DELIVERED: February 4, 2016
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10697-H10698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

  Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on September 29, 
2008 she presented to the President of the United States, for his 
approval, the following bills:

[[Page H10698]]

       H.R. 2638. Making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 6890. To extend the waiver authority for the Secretary 
     of Education under section 105 of subtitle A of title IV of 
     division B of Public Law 109-148, relating to elementary and 
     secondary education hurricane recovery relief, and for other 
     purposes.
       H.R. 6894. To extend and reauthorize the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT 23.2**CONSENT OF VALUE INCORPORATEDWe hereby consent to all references to our firm and the reports issued by our firm to AffiliatedComputer Services, Inc. in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 and consent to the incorporation by reference of suchAnnual Report on Form 10-K in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-68656) and theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-122607, 333-117941, 333-117536, 333-105284,333-62030, 333-44764, and 333-42385) of Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.     VALUE INCORPORATED     By: /s/ David Fuller
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 14.2



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (Amendment No. 2) (No. 333-111085) of Capital
Environmental Resource Inc. of our report dated March 20, 2003, except for the
effect of the restatement related to the beneficial conversion feature as
described in Note 1 to the financial statements included on the Company's 2002
Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 2), which is as of November 4, 2003, relating to the
financial statements which appears in this Form 20-F.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Toronto, Canada
March 31, 2004
#### Ed. Sweeny v. H. C. Traverse, Judge.

Friday, January 30, 1891.

Certiorari. Original proceeding.

*W. iS. Coen,*for plaintiff.

*W. A. Work*and *J. F. Blake,*for defendant

Beck, C. J.

By a stipulation filed in this case it was agreed that it should be submitted with the case of *Silvers v. Traverse, ante,*p. 52, *certiorari*proceeding commenced in this court, and determined upon the same record and papers, the causes being alike as to facts and principles of law. For the reasons and upon the grounds set out in the opinion in the case referred to, the plaintiff’s petition in this case is dismissed.