alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors



 Exhibit 10.8 
 AMENDMENT FOR FINAL REGULATIONS UNDER CODE SECTION 409A 
 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.

 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 FOR NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 WHEREAS, Qwest Communications International Inc. (the “Company”) has
established the Qwest Communications International Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors, effective as of July 1, 2000, amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), applies to Part A of the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend Part A of the Plan in order to comply with final regulations issued under Code Section 409A; and

 WHEREAS, Article VIII of the Plan permits the Board of Directors of the Company, or such committee as the Board may designate, to
amend the Plan provided that such amendment does not adversely affect the rights of any Participant. 
 NOW THEREFORE, Part A of the
Plan is hereby amended as set forth below: 
 1. Plan Part A, Paragraph 6.1, Timing and Form of Distribution, shall be deleted in its entirety, and the
following inserted in lieu thereof: 
 6.1 Timing and Form of Distribution. Except as provided otherwise in this Article VI, each of
the Participant’s Accounts shall be distributed to the Participant on, or as soon as administratively practicable after, the date on which the Participant ceases to be a Director of the Company provided that the Participant’s cessation as
a Director constitutes a separation from service within the meaning of Code Section 409A. Each of the Participant’s Accounts shall be distributed to the Participant in the form of a cash lump sum. 
 2. Except as amended above, each and every provision of the Plan, as it previously may have been amended, shall remain in full force and effect without change or
modification. 
  

 1 of 2 









			
	QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC.:
		
	By:	 	 
		 	 Richard N. Baer
 Executive Vice President, General
Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer

		
	Date:	 	 


  

 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

Meeting Summary: Triclosan Surface Water Modeling and Monitoring

April 26, 2011, 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM

Room S-8100, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

Microban International, Ltd.: Neil K. Snyder, Matt Richter, Ivan Ong

The Accord Group: Pat Quinn

Environ: Ranjit Machado

Toxrac: Martin Bernstein

EPA: Nader Elkassabany, Jim Breithaupt, Donna Randall, Lance Wormell, Rebecca von 

dem Hagen

Summary

On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, the Antimicrobials Division hosted a meeting with 

Microban International, Ltd. to discuss the surface water modeling and monitoring

studies to be required as a result of the 2008 triclosan RED. The registrant requested this 

meeting to discuss study design prior to developing the formal protocol for EPA review. 

During the meeting, the registrant presented overviews of the plastic and textile 

manufacturing processes and of the proposed study design including site selection, 

location and duration of sampling, methods and techniques, and detection limit. 

During the meeting, the registrant claimed that the requirement to conduct monitoring of 

water released from the effluent of plastic manufacturing facilities should be waived 

because water does not come in contact with triclosan during the manufacturing process

of plastics in which triclosan is incorporated. EPA agreed to consider waiving the 

requirement to monitor water released from the effluent of plastic manufacturing 

facilities upon the submission of a formal waiver request and supporting rationale. 

Regardless of the Agency’s decision on the modeling and monitoring of effluent from 

plastic manufacturing facilities, Microban will be responsible for modeling and 

monitoring of water released from the effluent of textile manufacturing plants.

Next Steps

Microban will make suggested changes to the study design and submit a protocol in the 

near future.
# CE2004084EN.01029801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/298 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/298

---

(2004/C 84 E/0345)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0039/04

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Amount of EU legislative acts

Subject:

Can the Commission provide a breakdown of the number of legislative acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union in 2003, broken down by institution (Commission, Council and EP/Council) and by nature of the acts (Recommendation, Decision, Directive, Regulation, etc.)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

(6 February 2004)

A table giving the number of legislative instruments which were adopted, repealed or expired in 2003, listed by type of instrument and institution concerned, is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

The data is taken from the General Report on the Activities of the European Union for 2003, which each year, is transmitted to Parliament on the second Tuesday of February under Article 212 of the EC Treaty.

---
# CE2004084EN.01081701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/817 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/817

---

(2004/C 84 E/0912)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0602/04

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject:   Global assessment of the major Ebro water transfer project

Subject:

On 16 December 2003, before the Committee on the Environment, and on various later occasions, Commissioner Barnier stated that the Commission was going to carry out a global assessment of the Ebro water transfer project, since this was a ‘mega scheme’. Another project, previously assessed by the Commission was the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó, using the services of the EIB. The EIB study has been criticised for its partiality, and for the lack of involvement of all the parties involved, since the EIB merely consulted the local administrations and groups which were in favour of the transfer.

Is the Commission going to use the EIB to assess the Ebro transfer?

How does the Commission intend to rectify the omission of public participation in its assessment of the Júcar — Vinalopó transfer and in that of the Ebro transfer?

Does the Commission intend to push for consultations at local level and fresh technical meetings in Brussels?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

(16 April 2004)

The projects regarding the Ebro river transfer, submitted by the Spanish authorities for co-financing through Community funds, are under evaluation by the Commission. As announced, they are being evaluated as a single global project.

According to the provisions of Article26.2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), and with Article 13.2 and 13.3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2), the Commission may consult, where necessary, the European Investment Bank (EIB) for the appraisal of projects.

1

2

The EIB works as an independent consultant. The Commission is not involved in this process.

In the light of all the relevant information and analyses, the Commission will make its own assessment of the project in the context of its responsibilities laid down in the above-mentioned regulations and in partnership with the Spanish authorities concerned. Where necessary, it may decide to convene additional technical meetings on the project.

The Commission is required to adopt each decision concerning support from the Structural Funds and Cohesion in line with the relevant Community Regulations and in full compliance with all the other applicable Community policies and legislation.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

(2)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

2

---
REF 

MEMO ROUTING 

4 

:A66061 

INITIALS CIRCULATE 

DATE COORDINATION 

NOTE AND 

RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

DD FORM 95 H~IJll"''DAAUOl•urm!!9."1,IApr~11,,.111l.4.J.o'HQ c•o .,.,. 0 ..,,., I FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nnv 4i, wh_1ch_ru_ay_oo_• _used. __________ _
• 

USCIB' J.4.4/l 

28 April 1954 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Change in Title of SLO, Washington. 

U.K. authorities have requested that all concerned be informed 

that the title of Senior Liaison Officer (SLO), Washington will be 

ofticiall.T changed to Senior U.K. Liaison Officer (SUKLO), Washington 

on 1 May 1954. 

jl" 

USCIB: 14.4/1 

I 

I 

I 

RUFUS L. R 

Captain, U. S. Nav 

cutive Secretal"Y', USCIB 

I 

I 

. 

SECRET 

,• 

' 

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 03-04-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 4 330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DONTE LAMONT DINGLE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 1 : 19

- cr - 00 2 04

- DKC

- 1 )

Submitted : November 29 , 2022 Decided: January 27, 2023

Before AGEE and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
ON BRIEF: Christopher M. Davis, Mary E. Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, Brandon K. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, LaRai N. Everett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330 Doc: 73 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM : Donte Dingle was convicted by a jury of ten offenses arising from four armed
robberies

. See 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g)(1) , 924(c), 1951( a)

. The district court sentenced Dingle

to 30 years of imprisonment, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Dingle raises
three questions related to the search warrant of Dingle’s room : w hether the warrant was supported by probable cause; w hether the warrant affidavit contained material misstatements and omissions; and w hether the issuing magistrate had power to authorize a

warrant

. Dingle also objects to two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings: its admission of witness testimony about the robbery suspect’s shirt, and its limitation of Dingle’s
counsel’s cross

- examination of an FBI witness. Before the district court, Dingle ob jected to the veracity of the warrant affidavit and whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. This Court thus reviews the district court’s factual findings on those issues for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.
United States v. Sc ott , 941 F.3d 677, 683 (4th Cir. 2019) ; United States v. Jones , 942 F.3d 634, 640 (4th Cir. 2019)

. Because Dingle objects to the issuing magistrate’s authority for
the first time before this Court , he must establish a plain error that affected his substant ial rights. United States v. Nelson , 37 F.4th 962, 966 (4th Cir. 2022); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Finally, b ecause Dingle made the same evidentiary objections before the district
court and has thus preserved them, we review th ose rulings for abuse o f discretion, mindful of whether any errors were harmless. See United States v. Walker , 3 2 F.4th 377, 394 (4th Cir. 2022). USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330 Doc: 73 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 We have carefully reviewed the record and have identified no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-4330 Doc: 73 Filed: 01/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
# CE2004084EN.01076701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/767 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/767

---

(2004/C 84 E/0863)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/04

by Juan Ferrández Lezaun (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Projects offering alternatives to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (SNHP)

Subject:

In November 2001 the Spanish ministries for science and technology, agriculture and the environment signed a protocol for studying and financing a project for desalination in Almeria as a possible way of remedying the water shortage in that region. In 2001 CIRCE (centre for research on energy resources and consumption) also drew up another report for the Ministry for the Environment.

The research findings support the desalination option and conclude that desalination plants, as well as offering optimum energy yield by using new technologies, would make it possible to supply 82 cubic hectometres per year at a price of EUR 0,30 per cubic metre in Almeria, whereas 90 cubic hectometres per year are supposed to be delivered under the National Hydrological Plan. The area's water needs could thus be covered with less impact on the environment and the water would cost less than the water diverted under the SNHP (EUR 0,34 per cubic metre).

Does the Commission know about these reports? If not, does it not consider that the SNHP project and its funding should be suspended until existing alternative projects have been assessed, such as those submitted by the government of Aragón or the aforementioned desalination plants, which have a lesser social, economic and environmental impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the specific studies referred to by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission has received extensive information in the context of the ongoing discussion/reflections on the Spanish Hydrological Plan, concerning the efficacy and decreasing costs of desalination techniques. The thrust of much of this information is that the most recent advances in desalination technology enable the production of water with lower financial and environmental costs than other water supply alternatives.

The information on the potential of desalination will be taken into account by the Commission in the context of future decisions relating to the requests for Community funding (structural funds and cohesion fund) recently submitted by the Spanish authorities in relation to the proposed Ebro transfer.

---
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

Mr. William F. Friedman 

310 2nd Street, s. E. 

Washington, D. c. 

Dear Mr. Friedman: 

8 OCT 1957 

Atter considerable thought., I teel. that the meetillg of 

the NS.A Scientific Advieol')" Boa.rd, scheduled for 24-26 October, 

should be postponed until after l Jtm•Jar:f 1958· This decision 

has been based upon considerations o-r a technical, fiscal, and 

poliq- nature. It appears that a.f'ter the first of the yea:r we 

will be in a better posi ti.on to present to you our current 

scientif'ic problems .. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

~~~~ A. Sf.MFOBD 

Lieutenant General, tEAF 

Director 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-15-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
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

          - [Apple, Inc.; Project No. 14430-004]

                    1. By letter filed January 9, 2014, Apple, Inc. informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Monroe Drop Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14430, originally issued August 1, 2014,[1]                                          has been transferred from Monroe Hydro, LLC to Apple, Inc. The proposed project would be located on North Unit Irrigations District's main irrigation canal near the town of Culver in Jefferson County, Oregon. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.                

2. Apple, Inc. is now the exemptee for the Monroe Drop Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14430. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Apple, Inc., Attn: Mr. Nathan Fleisher, 1 Infinite Loop, MS: 119-REF, Cupertino, CA 95014.

Dated: February 18, 2015.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             148 FERC ¶ 62,098, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing (Conduit).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2015-03745 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER



Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)



Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, John R. Gibson, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Pacific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ JOHN R. GIBSONJohn R. Gibson Chairman of the Board of Directors, President & Chief Executive Officer April 30, 2003




99.1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2
                                                                    ------------

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated February 2, 1999
included in Open Market, Inc's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998
and to all references to our Firm included in this Registration Statement.


                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                              -----------------------

                              Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
October 21, 1999
Equity Incentive Plan Stock Option Award Agreement - Incentive Options


   Exhibit 10.3

 
  ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. 
  2008
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
  STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT 
  
 Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that as of (Date) (the “Date of Grant”), (Name) (the “Optionee”), a
director, officer or employee of the Company and/or its Affiliates, was granted, pursuant to the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), an option to purchase an aggregate of (#) shares (the
“Options”) of Stock of the Company at an Exercise Price of $ (price) per share. The Options consist of:
  
 
	  
 	 •
 	 An Incentive
Option to purchase (#) shares of Stock, which is intended to meet the requirements of Section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code.
 

 
  
 Except as otherwise provided in the Plan, the Optionee shall have the right to purchase from the Company, in whole or in part, after the following dates, the following
number of shares:
  
                                         
 
                                         
      Incentive Option
                                   Vesting
Date                               Shares Exercisable
  
  
  
  
 The Options are subject in all respects to the applicable terms and conditions of the Plan
now in effect and as may be amended from time to time, as well as to such rules and regulations as the Committee may adopt in accordance with the Plan (which terms and conditions are and automatically shall be incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof). Unless earlier termination pursuant to any provision of the Plan, the Options shall expire on (Date).
  
 Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in the Plan.
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Stock Option Award Agreement to be
executed and the Optionee has acknowledged his/her acceptance of this Certificate and his/her receipt of the 2008 Equity Incentive Plan document.
  
 
	 Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
 	 Optionee:

 

 
  
  
 
	 By:
 	 ____________________________
 	 ______________________________
 
	 	 	(Name)
J REF ID:A61166 

SECRET e 

USCIB: 29.1/19 

19 February 1954 

BBeftE'f 

Ml!MORANDUM FOR THE MJ!MBEBS OF USCIB: 

Subject.: 

Reterence: 

Program to Improve the Oammmications Securit7 ot 

NATO C01m.triea. 

USCIB 29.1/6 ot 15 December 1953 (Revised 

4 February 1954). 

Formal LSIB approval of the plan presented in the reterence 

was received on 18 February 1954. 

USCIB: 29.1/19 

SBORB'f' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-18-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

20
REF ID:A51709B 

NATIONAL SOOURITY COUOOIL 

WASHIOOTON 

September 3, 1948 

Ml!MORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATF.5 C<l1MUNICATIONS 

INTELLIGENCE BOARD 

SUBJECT: Problem Referred to National Security Coun~il for 

Decision. 

At the time of its meeting on September 21 1948, 

the National Security Council considered the problem referred 

by the United States Conmmnications Intelligence Boa.rd and 

decided that no action should be taken with regard to the subject concerned. 

It is understood that the United States COOUllllnications 

Intelligence Board members have been informed of the foregoing 

orally by authorization of the Director of Central Intelligence. 

SIDNEY W. SOUERS 

Executive Secretary 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 03-14-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a