alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111760 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

December 15, 1969 

1111111 [1111 lllii Uiil Hill llill llllllllll llll 111111111111111111 14 000782940 

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL KING 

SUBJECT: Incentive Contract Structure 

This memorandum responds to your letter, "Specialized Incentive 

Contract Structure for Satellite Projects," dated November 10, 1969, 

in which you requested authority to use the termination fee provision 

contained in the specialized incentive structure. 

The General Counsel was asked for a determination of the applicability of ASPR Section VIII, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 217 (b)(2), 

and ASPR Section VII, Part 2, Paragraph 203. 4(b) to the specialized 

incentive structure. The General Counsel has determined that a 

waiver of these ASPR provisions is not required since the termination fee provisions are an integral part of the total specialized incentive structure which is not considered a deviation from ASPR. 

We have attached a copy of the General Counsel determination 

for your use. 

,. ttachmer~L 

WILLIAM R. YOST 

Colonel, USAF 

Deputy Director for 

Plans & Policy 

Office of Space Systems 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111760 

l--tt•:t..·,11, 

i 
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111760 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

December 12, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SPACE SYSTEMS, SAFSS 

ATTENTION: CAPT MECEDA 

SUBJECT: Special Incentive Provisions in Contracts for 

Satellite Projects 

I have discussed with our legal representative to the 

ASPR Committee the questions raised in Gen King's memorandum 

of November 10, 1969 to SAFUS, subject as above, and we have 

concluded that no waiver from the ASPR is required, in view 

of the prior determination that use of the special incentive 

system would not constitute a deviation from it. (See 

"Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R&D), 

Subject: Special Incentives for Satellite Programs," dated 

September 28, 1966, from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

(Procurement).) If the termination provision referred to 

in Gen King's memorandum is used, however, it should be 

adapted to make it consistent with those special incentive 

provisions. 

Assistant Deputy General Counsel 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111760
4

•

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

TOP SECRET

411

---(SrlATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

8 March 1974

•1

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. SINGEL/GENERAL KULPA

SUBJECT: Summary of Aircraft Discussion with Secretary Plummer

1

In order to proceed with the resolution of the role of the

IRO in denied area overflight, Mr. Plummer would like a set of

pro's and con's relative to the question. While he does not

desire any detailed compilation of procedures at this time, a

"bare bones" procedural approach might be useful as a discussion

tool in evaluating options. In his discussions with Mr. Singel

he mentioned several positive aspects of the NRO control over

overflights. These were:

1. Simply bringing the problem up for discussion would

focus attention on the question and therefore, might encourage

a cleanup of the tines of command for denied area overflight.

3. The NRO's quick reaction capability and streamlined

management procedures could be used to speed work on developmental

systems to either be tested or used by aircraft, e.g., sensors,

photo technology, etc. In these areas the NRO possesses a greater

wealth of knowledge than any other organization.

4. NRO authority over

ideration

assure 

of

na .

'5. Related to the above ansi

s stem, the NRO could coordina •

a . ant

111111111V: ISCV IVIWSIW2C.1" 1.

POW

-- -1•••-•-••!...ern -•-•*:-:•-:.•••••n 17774-7"7".11.r7477n,

••

CONTROL NO MEWL

COPY OF comas

► aita_Loc 2 Imo's
AVON

SONOMA..

sitscurnos 01101111111111) Sivornaseart

SOW ISE OSCSASSAV ON NOP Sit

•

Executive Assistant

CONTROL NO

COPY OF COPIES

mail_oe 2_ PAGES
_F
Submitted on record and briefs April 22,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing July 14, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*WILLIAM BELL, *Appellant.*

(90C-20539; CA A74244)

855 P2d 669

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*660PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, ORS 164.415, robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405, and burglary in the first degree. ORS 164.225. After determining the presumptive sentence for each charge under the sentencing guidelines, the court found defendant to be a dangerous offender and imposed a 30-year sentence under ORS 161.725. On the robbery in the first degree and the burglary charges, the court also imposed a mandatory minimum term of incarceration under ORS 144.110. The court “merged” the two robbery charges for sentencing.

Defendant argues that the court erred by imposing minimum terms under ORS 144.110. The state concedes that the court erred. *State v. Serhienko,*111 Or App 604, 826 P2d 114 (1992). We accept that concession.1

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing on robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree.

1

 Because defendant’s plea was not the result of a plea agreement with the state, ORS 138.222(2)(d) does not prohibit us from reviewing this claim of error. *See State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993).
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.11.2

[SIMMONS LOGO]


INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE



                             PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL



DATE:           March 15, 2002

FROM:           Charlie Eitel

SUBJECT:        2002 Management Bonus Plan

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

I am pleased to announce several changes to the Management Bonus Plan criteria
for 2002. Beginning this year, payouts will be based on EBITDA and sales
objectives. By measuring performance against these criteria, plan participants
can be recognized and rewarded for a more direct impact on company results.

Below is an outline of the bonus criteria for the various plan participants,
both at corporate and at the plants:

CORPORATE, SITE, AND WARREN DRIVE
     -    20% Corporate Sales Objective
     -    80% Corporate EBITDA Objective

PLANTS
     -    15% Plant Sales Objective
     -    45% Plant PPV/O1 Objective
     -    40% Corporate EBITDA Objective

NATIONAL ACCOUNTS
     -    15% National Account Sales Objective
     -    45% National Account Dealer Contribution
     -    40% Corporate EBITDA Objective



<PAGE>

2002 Management Bonus Plan
Page Two


TO BE ELIGIBLE, THE COMPANY MUST HIT:
     -    91% of EBITDA budget AND
     -    91% of all categories totaled


IN ORDER TO PAY IN EXCESS OF 100% IN ANY CATEGORY:
     -    The company must hit 100% of EBITDA
     -    For the plants, they must hit 100% of the PPV/O1 Objective
     -    For National Accounts, they must hit 100% of the Dealer Contribution
          Objective

The percentage of bonus each participant will receive at each threshold is
indicated below for EBITDA:

At 90% performance level (or below)                   0% Bonus
At 91% performance level                             10% Bonus
At 92% performance level                             20% Bonus
At 93% performance level                             30% Bonus
At 94% performance level                             40% Bonus
At 95% performance level                             50% Bonus
At 96% performance level                             60% Bonus
At 97% performance level                             70% Bonus
At 98% performance level                             80% Bonus
At 99% performance level                             90% Bonus
At 100% performance level                           100% Bonus
Over 100% performance level                           1% of salary for each
                                                      additional 1% performance
                                                      above 100%

The percentage of bonus for sales will be prorated from 0 to 100% for sales
between 2001 actual sales and the 2002 target.

Earning a bonus is contingent on an employee receiving at least a "Meets
Expectations" performance rating at the annual performance appraisal and being
an active employee at the time bonuses are distributed. Employees whose
employment began after January 1, 2002 will be prorated for the year.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SUSAN J. COSGROVE AND HOWARD G. ESHLEMAN, AS CO

- EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF IRENE M. ESHLEMAN,

Respondents

v.

MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER, PA, LLC

D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH

SERVICES

- LANCASTER, HCR MANOR CARE, INC., MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AND MANOR CARE, INC.,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 549 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Unpublished Judgment Order and

Order of the Superior Court at No. 761
MDA 2014 entered on June 18, 2015, affirming the Order Entered of the Lancaster County Court of Common

Pleas at No. 12

- 11713 entered on April
4, 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED

. The Superior Court’s order is VACATED , and the matter is

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.

,

___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 5630669 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2016).
.... ·······-····----------------- -· -·----·--···- ----- ·---- ---.- ...... ·---·- --- - -- ------ -- --------**~**

' 

### \
Lbu.P:I D 

### I= 

### UZt i\/L u0 t.d .( 

### A- ff t:tkl 

### s. 6t 

### "'11:: l 

### !}£ 

## CAP 

## i1o I 'STA·r

### ~ot~ 

## i-?a. '60X 

### \2308**Au_sTI~J** 

### , 11:::----x-a:'; 1 

### 01 

# n

UeA:l2- 

# 4-t iL!L.- > 

### -=:L AM**LDN~TACI i~t;** **'it:~vuZ_** 

### OF-'Fc.ct wi)A'{ -,D IZeG>uES-i

< A<sS<STtl:MC£.. DtJ lEAr2JLL-uJ_ \ 

### ----nrlc**~£tx~** DF ---rHt..**A~WE** IV'lffillbtJE}) CAill.E**uwvt£3.6~-S.** · \.i{Jue_ A-'DScr;.(0t.JC£. 

### w·l'rl.f. 

### TJ-.1 tS Mhl ffi::"L- 

### 1-S Vli£.EtCITl 

### 't' A 

### Pf' 0£LttJ?T£i) t



### -

# S~Lt~dX~ .

.

### ~ j? ·

### ~.a fAA.JA/**-J6~** 

### usA. 

## as ::tt**~~gs;64** 

### gq9· l="/-JL ln3Z C.0Nr0L\U'1 UJJ'vf



# RECEI.VED IN COURT OF CRIMINAl APPEALS 

### OCT 22 

### 2015



## - ---------------· -------------- ----· -- --- -------- ____________ . __ _ ____________**----~** 

## __ __ __**-------------~b~!~t~~ta, g~y~**  

# ________ _
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM XIONICS'
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K/A AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      20,317,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,748,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,016,788
<PP&E>                                       6,921,128
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,892,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,713,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,656,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       127,269
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,929,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,713,261
<SALES>                                     31,403,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,403,383
<CGS>                                        9,747,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,747,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,301,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,107,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                   289,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,817,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,817,048
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
Interagency Review 1.) Submission to OMB on August 31, 2011 2.) Interagency

Comments 1

– email from Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, to Jeremy Arling, EPA, on September 27, 2011 3.) EPA Response to Interagency Comments 1

– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, on October 11, 2011 4.) EPA Response to Interagency Comments 2

– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, on October 27, 2011 5.) EPA Response to Interagency Comments 3

– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, on N ovember 7, 2011 6.) Interagency

Comments 2

– email from Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, to Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, on November 7, 2011 7.) EPA Response to Interagency Comments 4

– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, on November 17, 2011 8.) Interagency

R equest to see EPA memos

– email from Nathan Frey , OMB/OI RA, to Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, on November 29, 2011 9.) EPA Response to Interagency Request
– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Fre y, OMB/OIRA, on November 29, 2011 10.) EPA Response to Interagency Co mments 5
– email from Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, to Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, on December 13, 2011 11.) OMB Concurrence

– email from Nathan Frey , OMB/OIRA, to Luke Hall - Jordan, EPA, on December 14, 2011 12.) Final Proposed Rule Showing Changes
# C_2004300EN.01003901.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/39

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 September 2004

in Case T-313/02: David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Competition - Freedom to provide services - Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) - Purely sporting legislation)

(2004/C 300/76)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-313/02: David Meca-Medina, residing at Barcelona (Spain), Igor Majcen, residing at Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: O. Beynet and A. Bouquet, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 August 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicants against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) seeking a declaration that certain rules adopted by the latter and implemented by the Fédération internationale de natation (FINA) and certain practices relating to doping control are incompatible with the Community competition rules and the freedom to provide services (Case COMP/38158 – Meca-Medina and Majcen/IOC) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission's costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission's costs;

| 3. | Orders that the Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MARIO ERNESTO VILLABONA

ALVARADO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 55477 D.C. Nos. 2:13

- cv - 05080

- GHK

2:88

- cr - 00972

- GHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015 ** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

. Mario Ernesto Villabona

- Alva rado appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his convictions stemming from a 1990 trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 55477

§ 1291, and we a ffirm.
Villabona

- Alva rado claims that evidence discovered after the resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion provides a basis for vacating his conviction s . We
review de novo the district court’s denial of Villabona

- Alva rado ’s coram nobis petition

. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1 003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2007)

. The district court properl y refused to hear Villabona

- Alva rado’s repetitive petition given that he presented no evidence of “ manif est injustice or a change in law. ”
Polizzi v. United States , 550 F.2d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1976) ; see also Matus

- Leva
v. United States , 287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A petitioner may not resort to
coram nobis merely because he has failed to meet the AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements

. ”). Moreover, Villabona

- Alv a rado’s clai ms fail to demonstrate an error of “the most fundamental character.” Hirabayashi v. United States , 828 F.2d 591, 604 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2187 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2187

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
    certain retirement plan contributions picked up by governmental 
                               employers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2017

  Mrs. Black (for herself, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. 
Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, Mrs. Blackburn, and Mr. Kustoff of 
  Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
    certain retirement plan contributions picked up by governmental 
                               employers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLAN 
              CONTRIBUTIONS PICKED UP BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``For purposes of paragraph (1)'' and 
        inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)'', 
                and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Treatment of elections between alternative 
                benefit formulas.--
                            ``(i) In general.--For purposes of 
                        subparagraph (A), a contribution shall not fail 
                        to be treated as picked up by an employing unit 
                        merely because the employee may make an 
                        irrevocable election between the application of 
                        two alternative benefit formulas involving the 
                        same or different levels of employee 
                        contributions.
                            ``(ii) Application to existing employees.--
                        Clause (i) shall be applied without regard to 
                        whether the employee is already covered by one 
                        of the benefit formulas referred to therein.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to years ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Development of A Statistical Testing Approach for Quantifying Safety-Related Digital System on Demand Failure Probability (NUREG/CR-7234)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7234 (PDF – 6.61 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2015**Date Published:**May 2017

**Prepared by:** Tsong-Lun Chu1, Athi Varuttamaseni1, Joo-Seok Baek1, Meng Yue1, Tim Kaser2, George Marts2, Paul Murray2, Bentley Harwood2, Nancy Johnson2, and Ming Li3

1Brookhaven National Laboratory2Idaho National Laboratory3U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Ming Li, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code V6196

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

A statistical testing approach for quantifying on-demand failure probabilities for safety-related digital systems has been developed and applied to the loop-operating control system (LOCS) of an Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) experimental loop at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This work is the result of a collaboration between Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), INL, and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI).

The objectives of the study include:
        - development of a statistical testing approach for estimating digital system failure probability, the results of which are suitable for including in a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA); and
        - application of this approach to the LOCS, and insights into the feasibility, practicality, and usefulness of the estimation in models of digital systems for inclusion in nuclear power plants' PRAs.

The study used the ATR's PRA to define the testing environment, that is, the conditions under which the safety system would be called upon to initiate a safety function. Based on the PRA accident sequence information, a thermal-hydraulic model (RELAP5) was used to simulate the experimental loop conditions (e.g., pressure, temperature, and flow) during the selected accident sequences in order to provide realistic input signals to the LOCS test platform. To ensure that the test cases provided adequate coverage of operational conditions, thirteen probabilistic failure process models (PFPMs) were developed to represent the varieties associated with timing, component failure modes, and process variable control. An automated test platform was developed to supply input signals for each test case to the LOCS digital system and monitor when a trip signal was generated. The testing results were then used to quantify the on-demand failure probability of the digital LOCS system.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021