alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.19

DIRECTOR STOCK PURCHASE PLAN OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE FORMS

                                   Memorandum

To:               ___________________
From:             ___________________, Chairman of the Board/President
Subject:          Director Stock Purchase Plan
Date:             ____________________


The Board of Directors of CN Bancorp, Inc. approved on __________________ stock
purchase options for directors under the Director Stock Purchase Plan, whereby
all directors, including directors-emeritus, of CN Bancorp or its subsidiary,
County National Bank, may purchase common stock of CN Bancorp.

For this option award, the number of shares that a director is eligible to
purchase is _____. A director may purchase this number of shares or any portion
thereof, but not less than 50 shares.

The purchase price for the purchased stock will be $_____, the fair market value
as defined by the Plan on _________________.

Directors wishing to purchase stock under this option award must respond to this
offer by completing the "Acceptance of Option" form and submitting it to
__________________, Corporate Secretary, by ________________.

Directors who have accepted this option to purchase stock under the Director
Stock Purchase Plan must purchase the stock by _________________. The payment
must be made in one lump sum. After the _____________ date, no stock can be
purchased under this Director Stock Purchase Plan award.

This memorandum summarizes the general parameters of this option program.
Reference should be made to the plan document which is attached for additional
information.









                                       1


<PAGE>











                              ACCEPTANCE OF OPTION
                        Date of Grant: __________________



Director name:                              ___________________
Number of shares available for purchase:    _________

I hereby elect to accept my option to purchase __________ shares of CN Bancorp,
Inc. common stock at a purchase price of $_____ per share for a total purchase
price of __________, such amount being due and payable to CN Bancorp, Inc. on or
before _________________ under the Director Stock Purchase Plan.



-------------------------------             ---------------
Signature of Director                       Date





Stock purchased by the above named director should be titled as follows:

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

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

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













                                       2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. Kevin Hrusovsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

By:

/s/ E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKY E. Kevin Hrusovsky President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
March 11, 2011

---



QuickLinks
# C_2005031EN.01000801.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/8

---

Action brought on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-485/04)

(2005/C 31/17)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC (2) relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and, in any event, by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC (2) relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and, in any event, by not notifying the Commission of those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

1

2

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period prescribed for the implementation of the directive expired on 30 June 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 76 of 22.03.2003, p. 10.

1

(2)  OJ L 350 of 28.12.1998, p. 58.

2

---
**Natural Resources Conservation Service**

**CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD**

**FIELD BORDER**

**Code 386**

**(Ac)**
#### Olson, Respondent, vs. Cunningham, Appellant.

*January 8*

February *4, 1930.*

*611The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of the *Attorney General*and /. *E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and for the respondent on that of *Herman Leicht*of Medford.

Owen, J.

The Justices participating in the consideration of this case are equally divided, Mr. Chief Justice Rosen-berry, Mr. Justice Stevens, and Mr. Justice Fritz being of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Crownhart, Mr. Justice Fowler, and the writer are of the opinion that it should be affirmed. Under .the well established rule, the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Checklist for Streamlined Safe Harbor Boundary Line Adjustment 

Amendment Request

Updated 5/2023 

Easement ID #: NRCS Easement Program: 

Entity: Landowner(s): 

State: 

REQUIRED EXHIBITS: 

Written Landowner Request (copy of email is acceptable)

Copy of Original Recorded Easement Deed 

Draft Deed/Deed Exhibits (.doc or .docx formatted document showing “red line” changes) 

Project Letter from Entity which responds to each of the following: 

• Entity’s approval of proposed amendment;

• Confirmation that Entity will email an electronic copy of the recorded deed within 30 days of receipt of

such recording to NRCS.ProgramAgreements@usda.gov;

• Acknowledgement that Landowner and/or Entity are responsible for recording and all costs related to

the execution of any approved amendment; and

• Acknowledgement that Landowner has been made aware that any decision to approve or deny a

request to amend an easement deed is a discretionary action for NRCS and does not create any

appeal rights.

Letter from Entity Legal Counsel that attests to all of the following:

• Confirmation that Entity has incorporated the following NRCS required amendment language verbatim

and removed all other boundary line adjustment terms from the deed;

“Pursuant to IRS Notice 2023-30, Grantor and Grantee agree that boundary line adjustments to the real property subject to the 

Easement may be made only pursuant to a judicial proceeding to resolve a bona fide dispute regarding a boundary line’s 

location. Any such boundary line adjustment must also be approved by the United States as an amendment to the Easement in 

accordance with Section __.”

• The proposed amendment will not affect recording priority or, alternatively, that the necessary

subordination(s) have been secured to maintain existing priority;

• No other deed terms beyond the boundary line safe harbor amendment are being modified; and

• If easement, in whole or part, is incorporated or held by a trust or other legal entity that counsel has

evidence that signatory has authority to bind corporation, trust, or other form of legal entity.

Use this checklist when submitting a request to the NRCS Easement Programs Division for a safe harbor boundary line adjustment 

language amendment (pursuant to IRS Notice 2023-30) to ensure that all required supporting documentation has been included. 

Important Notes:

• NRCS will not review or approve requests to incorporate the safe harbor extinguishment clause provided in IRS Notice

2023-30. The extinguishment safe harbor clause has not been approved by IRS for use by with NRCS easements.

• NRCS will not review or approve requests that do not include or respond to each item required by this checklist.

• NRCS will not guarantee review of any requests received after 5pm ET June 30, 2023.

• All requests must be submitted by email to NRCS.Programagreements@usda.gov with the subject line header “Boundary

line expedited modification request.”
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02826]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: GE Healthcare

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34(a) on or before March 13, 2015. Such persons may also file a 
written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.43 on or before March 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for 
hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: 
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. 
Comments and request for hearings on applications to import narcotic 
raw material are not appropriate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispenser, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion 
Control (``Deputy Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on 
September 12, 2014, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington 
Heights, Illinois 60004-1412 applied to be registered as an importer of 
cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
schedule II.
    The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the 
form of three separate analogues of cocaine, to validate production and 
quality control systems, for a reference standard, and for producing 
material for a future investigational new drug (IND) submission.

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-02826 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 

Submission of Transportation Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 SIP

Plan Supplement

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness 

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee YES See letter from Richard Corey, 

ARB Executive Officer.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption YES See enclosed ARB Resolution 15-39.

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation YES See ARB Resolution 15-39.

2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan for ozone

c. Contingency measures, 

d. Transportation control conformity budgets 

c. Vehicle Miles Traveled offset demonstration

d. Reasonably Available Control Measure

analysis

YES Transportation conformity budgets for 

2018.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements YES See ARB Resolution 15-39.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 YES

See public notice and proof 

of publication in the ARB public

notice published to web on 

June 19, 2015 at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/plan

area/july_notice.pdf

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice YES See ARB Resolution 15-39.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses YES

There were no relevant public 

comments for the ARB Board adoption. 

See Board Meeting Comment Log. 

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant NO Not applicable.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status NO Not applicable.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions NO Not applicable.

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS NO Not applicable.

2.2(e) Modeling Support NO Not applicable. 

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification NO Not applicable.

S:\TPB\SHARED\Transportation\Conformity\San Joaquin Valley\EMFAC2014 v1.0.7 updates\Submittal to USEPA\SIP Submittal 

Completeness Checklist.doc
S:\TPB\SHARED\Transportation\Conformity\San Joaquin Valley\EMFAC2014 v1.0.7 updates\Submittal to USEPA\SIP Submittal 

Completeness Checklist.doc
# C_2005012EN.01001902.xml

| 18.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/19

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3634 — Isuzu/Bergé/Mitsubishi/JV)

(2005/C 12/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3634. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3634. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex).

---
# C_2004314EN.01000602.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004 in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG

(Case C-447/04)

(2004/C 314/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) of 30 September 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versicherungs AG.

The Landesgericht Innsbruck asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

Is Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the insurance company against which a claim has been made is always subject to a three-month time-limit to deal with the matter, even in the case of a simple factual and legal situation, or that this refers merely to a ‘setting of the due date’, which does not exclude earlier settlement of the claim by the insurance company after the setting of an ‘appropriate’ time-limit for payment which is also within the three-month period?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 181, p. 65.

1

---
# C_2005068EN.01001101.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 March 2005

(2005/C 68/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3279 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4478 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69345 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1144 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5495 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,08 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1280 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5834 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,749 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,66 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4324 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0675 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 276 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,70 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,280 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7546 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6802 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6027 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3552 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7951 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1613 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 334,54 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0401 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3279

JPY

Japanese yen

139,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4478

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69345

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1144

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5495

ISK

Iceland króna

78,08

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1280

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5834

CZK

Czech koruna

29,749

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,66

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4324

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0675

ROL

Romanian leu

36 276

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,70

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,280

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7546

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6802

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6027

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3552

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7951

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1613

KRW

South Korean won

1 334,54

ZAR

South African rand

8,0401

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, as Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-K report of the Company for the period
ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  February 15, 2005

                                             /s/ PAUL G. VANDERHOVEN
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Paul G. Vanderhoven,
                                             Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
Conservation Practice Overview 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

October 2017

Natural Resources Conservation Service

CPS Road/Trail/Landing Closure and 

Treatment (Code 654) 

Road/trail/landing closure and treatment involves the 

decommissioning and abandonment of travel ways or 

log landings.

Practice Information

This practice minimizes various resource concerns 

associated with existing roads, trails, and landings by 

closing and treating them to a level to achieve one or 

more the following resource objectives:

• Reduced erosion.

• Improved water quality by reducing offsite movement of chemical and petroleum residues.

• Improved water quality by reducing offsite movement of sediment.

• Improved air quality by reducing particulate matter (dust).

• Improved wildlife habitat by restoring food, cover, shelter, and habitat connectivity.

• Reduced noxious and invasive species.

• Restored ecologic, hydrologic, and geomorphic function.

• Minimizing human impacts to the closure area to meet safety, aesthetic, sensitive area 

protection, or wildlife habitat requirements.

Monitoring and patrolling must be conducted following heavy rain or high-wind events until the site is 

determined to be stable. Stabilizing measures and additional treatment may be necessary. Replace 

dead or dying vegetation as necessary and control nuisance, noxious, or invasive species until site is 

fully occupied by desired vegetation.

Common Associated Practices

Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Road/Trail/Landing Closure and Treatment (Code 654) is 

commonly applied with CPS such as Field Borders (Code 386), Forage Harvest Management (Code 

511), Land Clearing (Code 460), Integrated Pest Management (Code 595), Tree/Shrub Establishment 

(Code 612), and Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 645).

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-51137

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCELO CONTRERAS-BEJARANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-28-1

Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marcelo Contreras-Bejarano has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Contreras-Bejarano has not filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue

for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 21, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-51137 Document: 00511963823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
No. 11-51137

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-51137 Document: 00511963823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012