alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Non-Employee Director Compensation Program



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Description of the Non-Employee Director Compensation Program 
 Under the Director Compensation
Program for non-employee directors (the “Director Compensation Program”) of Embarq Corporation (“Embarq”), non-employee directors will be paid (1) an annual cash retainer of $50,000, and (2) a fee equal to $1,500 for
each meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”)(or any meeting of a Board committee on which a non-employee director is a member or an invited guest) which the eligible director personally attends, and $750 for each such meeting in
which the eligible director participates by telephone. The Chair of the Board’s Audit Committee will receive an additional annual retainer of $15,000 in recognition of such service and the Chair of any other Board committee (including special
committees) will receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000 in recognition of such service. The Board’s Lead Independent Director will also receive an additional annual retainer of $20,000. All cash compensation will be paid quarterly and
all retainers will be prorated for the period of service provided during the quarter. 
 In addition to the foregoing cash compensation, the
Director Compensation Program provides for each non-employee director to receive: 
  

	 	•	 	in connection with the initial election to the Board, a grant of $150,000 in restricted stock units of Embarq (“Embarq RSUs”), vesting in full upon the third regular
annual meeting of Embarq’s stockholders following the date of grant of such Embarq RSUs and with prorated acceleration of vesting in the event of a change in control, death, disability, retirement, or involuntary separation from the Board; and


  

	 	•	 	on or about the date of each annual meeting of Embarq’s stockholders, a grant of $75,000 in Embarq RSUs, which vest in full upon the first annual stockholders’ meeting
following the grant. With respect to this annual grant of Embarq RSUs, vesting will also be accelerated in full in the event of a change in control, death, disability, retirement, or involuntary separation from the Board. 


The Director Compensation Program will remain in effect until changed by the Board. 
  

 1
#### People v Gonzalez

2d Dept: 142 AD3d 541

denied*
No. 12-8181.

#### Compton *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Com. v. Curley

03/30/2016

918 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1128
# C_2011217EN.01002701.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/27

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 July 2011

appointing the members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for Germany, Hungary and Portugal

2011/C 217/07

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 of 18 July 1994 establishing a European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of proposed candidates for appointment submitted to the Council by the Government of Hungary and by the employees' organisations,

Having regard to the lists of members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Decisions of 22 November 2010 (2), 7 March 2011 (3) and 21 March 2011 (4) the Council appointed some members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Decisions of 22 November 2010 (2), 7 March 2011 (3) and 21 March 2011 (4) the Council appointed some members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 8 November 2010 to 7 November 2013.

2

3

4

| (2) | The Government of Hungary has submitted nominations for two posts to be filled for Hungary and the employees' organisations have submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled for Germany and Portugal, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Government of Hungary has submitted nominations for two posts to be filled for Hungary and the employees' organisations have submitted nominations for a number of posts to be filled for Germany and Portugal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following shall be appointed members and alternate members of the Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 7 November 2013:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Hungary | Mr János GÁDOR | Ms Éva GRÓNAI |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Hungary

Mr János GÁDOR

Ms Éva GRÓNAI

II.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES' ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternate members |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Germany | Ms Marina SCHRÖDER | Mr Thomas VEIT |
| Portugal | Mr Fernando José GOMES | |

Country

Members

Alternate members

Germany

Ms Marina SCHRÖDER

Mr Thomas VEIT

Portugal

Mr Fernando José GOMES

Article 2

The Council will appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2011.

For the Council

The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---

(1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 322, 27.11.2010, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ C 83, 17.3.2011, p. 2.

3

(4)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2011, p. 8.

4

---
#### Richard Burbridge et al., Appellants, v Soho Plaza Corp. et al., Respondents.

[55 NYS3d 172]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 17, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew the denial of their motion to hold defendants in contempt, vacate the note of issue, and grant summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs assert that additional facts came to light after entry of the order denying a finding of contempt, including that, even though defendants’ architect had attested previously that he had produced all relevant documents in his possession, he actually had six pages of relevant engineering reports in his possession which were ultimately produced. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying renewal. Upon renewal, plaintiffs improperly changed legal theories as to why defendants should be held in contempt *(see Matter of Kopicel v Schnaier,*145 AD3d 599, 599-600 [1st Dept 2016]). In addition, even if the architect was defendants’ agent, it is not clear that defendants violated the prior order when they did not submit an affidavit on his behalf *(Casler v Casler,*131 AD3d 664, 665 [2d Dept 2015]; *see also Garcia v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*231 AD2d 401, 402 [1st Dept 1996]). Further, plaintiffs have not actually shown that they were prejudiced by any delay.

In addition, Supreme Court properly refused to vacate the note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]) and/or waive the time limits for summary judgment (CPLR 3212 [a]), as plaintiffs failed to make a showing of “good cause” for either relief. Under the instant circumstances, Rowland’s production of six pages of engineering materials and Gibble’s deposition testimony post-note of issue do not constitute unusual or unanticipated circumstances *(see*22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; *Allen v Hiraldo,*144 *514AD3d 434, 435 [1st Dept 2016]; *Price v Bloomingdale’s,*166 AD2d 151, 151-152 [1st Dept 1990]). In light of the foregoing, this Court need not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1931

To provide duty-free privileges to participants in, and other individuals

associated with, the 1994 World Rowing Championships.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. COATS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To provide duty-free privileges to participants in, and other

individuals associated with, the 1994 World Rowing

Championships.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DUTY-FREE ENTRIES.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•S 1931 IS

‘‘ 9902.98.04 Any of the following articles not intended for commercial use: personal

effects of participants in, or officials of, or accredited members of

the delegation to,

the 1994 World

Rowing Championships; personal effects of persons

who are immediate

family members of,

or servants to, any

of the foregoing

persons; equipment

intended for use in

connection with

such Championships; and such

other related articles as may be allowed by the Secretary of the Treasury ......................... Free No change Free On or before

10/30/94 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 (a) GENERAL RULE.—The amendment made by this

3 Act applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from ware4 house for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the

5 date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—Notwithstanding section 514

7 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law,

8 upon proper request filed with the Customs Service on or

9 before the date that is 180 days after the date of the en10 actment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from ware11 house for consumption, of an article described in heading

12 9902.98.04 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

13 United States (as added by section 1) that occurred—

14 (1) after December 31, 1993, and before the

15 date which is 15 days after the date of the enact16 ment of this Act, and
3

•S 1931 IS

1 (2) with respect to which there would have been

2 no duty if the amendment made by section 1 applied

3 to such entry or withdrawal,

4 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend5 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javon Gamble, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 667]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 16, 2016 *(People v Gamble,*137 AD3d 1053 [2016]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered April 25, 2013.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8861.

#### Sypher *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Scott F. Hartman, Chairman of the Board, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                           
|/s/    SCOTT F. HARTMAN                                                                                    
|                                                                                                           
|Scott F. Hartman Chairman of the Board, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



March 5, 2004



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the
knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Marine Bulkheading, Inc., Appellant, v Joseph Mannino, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 639]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated February 1, 2016, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a clerk’s judgment entered August 27, 2013, in its favor in the sum of $30,672.55, upon the defendant’s failure to comply with a stipulation of settlement dated June 27, 2012, and sua sponte, in effect, directed specific performance of the stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order, as, sua sponte, in effect, directed specific performance of the stipulation of settlement is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal from that portion of the order is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, directed specific performance of the stipulation of settlement; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

As the Supreme Court properly determined, since the defendant had previously appeared in the action, he was entitled to notice of the plaintiff’s application to the Nassau County Clerk for a default judgment based upon his alleged breach of the parties’ stipulation of settlement pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) *(see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gavrielova,*130 AD3d 674, 675 [2015]; *see also Paulus v Christopher Vacirca, Inc.,*128 AD3d 116, 122 [2015]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Clerk was not authorized to enter a default judgment *1097pursuant to CPLR 3215 (i), since the parties’ stipulation of settlement did not provide for entry of a judgment “without further notice” to the defendant *(see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Wielgus,*131 AD3d 510, 511 [2015]; *see also Mashatt v Alsahlani,*139 AD3d 820, 822 [2016]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment.

However, the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it granted relief that was not sought by the parties when it, sua sponte, in effect, directed specific performance of the parties’ stipulation of settlement *(see Bank of N.Y. Trust Co., N.A. v Chiejina,*142 AD3d 570, 572-573 [2016]; *Great Fin. Bank, FSB v Interdenominational Bhd., Inc.,*109 AD3d 581, 583-584 [2013]; *Lyon v Lyon,*259 AD2d 525, 526 [1999]). Accordingly, we modify the order appealed from by deleting the provision thereof which, sua sponte, in effect, directed specific performance of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Mastro, J.P., Sgroi, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                            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 Quarterly Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S.
Steiner, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

May 14, 2004

                                            /s/ Michael Steiner
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael S. Steiner
                                            Principal Executive Officer




                                       20
EXHIBIT 32.02

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 Quarterly
Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Venerando J. Indelicato, Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (1) |  | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

February 9, 2007

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato
| | Venerando J. Indelicato    
| | Principal Financial Officer

23
#### Board of Managers of the Reade Chambers Condominium, Respondent, v 71 RC Property, LLC et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[58 NYS3d 361]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen M. Coin, J.), entered May 5, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ (the sponsor defendants) motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the causes of action for breach of contract and a declaration of easement, and denied their application to cancel a notice of pendency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the sponsor defendants breached their contractual obligations under the offering plan by failing to correct, repair or replace the defective conditions in the condominium building’s garage, which caused unit owners who purchased parking spaces in the garage to have to drive over the last unsold parking space to enter and exit the garage and their own spaces safely and reasonably. These allegations state causes of action for breach of contract and for a declaration that plaintiff has an implied easement of necessity over the unsold parking space *(see Simone v Heidelberg,*9 NY3d 177 [2007]). The sponsor defendants’ documentary evidence does not conclusively provide a defense to these claims.

*426The motion court properly left the notice of pendency undisturbed (CPLR 6501; *see Piccirillo v Ravenal,*161 AD2d 253 [1st Dept 1990], *lv dismissed*76 NY2d 935 [1990]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
# L_2010187EN.01002801.xml

| 21.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 187/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 187/28

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 637/2010 of 19 July 2010 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 186 of 20 July 2010
  )

On page 25, in the Annex, the table ‘Balkans Sugar’ should read as follows:

Balkans Sugar

Balkans Sugar

2009/2010 marketing year

2009/2010 marketing year

Applications lodged from 1.7.2010 to 7.7.2010

Applications lodged from 1.7.2010 to 7.7.2010

| Order No | Country | Allocation coefficient
  (%) | Further applications |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 09.4324 | Albania | — | |
| 09.4325 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | (1) | Suspended |
| 09.4326 | Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (*1) | (1) | |
| 09.4327 | Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | — | |
| 09.4328 | Croatia | (1) | |
| ‘—’ | : | Not applicable: no licence application has been sent to the Commission. |

Order No

Country

Allocation coefficient

(%)

Further applications

09.4324

Albania

—

09.4325

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(1)

1

Suspended

09.4326

Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (*1)

*1

(1)

1

09.4327

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

—

09.4328

Croatia

(1)

1

‘—’

:

Not applicable: no licence application has been sent to the Commission.

---

(*1)  Kosovo under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999.

*1

(1)  Not applicable: the applications do not exceed the quantities available and are fully granted.

1

---