alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

     The non-employee members of our Board of Directors (the "Board") are
reimbursed for travel, lodging and other reasonable expenses incurred in
attending Board or committee meetings.

     In addition, non-employee members of the Board receive cash compensation
for their service on the Board and its committees as follows:

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

          Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) per calendar quarter for all
     non-employee members of the Board for their service as a member of the
     Board, plus an additional Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) per calendar
     quarter for service as Chairman of the Board, each payable at the end of
     each calendar quarter; plus

          One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each regular or special Board
     meeting attended by such director in person, or Five Hundred Dollars ($500)
     for each regular or special Board meeting attended by such director by
     teleconference.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

          Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per calendar quarter for
     each member of the Audit Committee for their service as a member of the
     Audit Committee, plus an additional Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per
     calendar quarter for service as Chair of the Audit Committee, each payable
     at the end of each calendar quarter; plus

          Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for each regular or special Audit
     Committee meeting attended by such director in person, One Thousand Dollars
     ($1,000) for each regular or special Audit Committee meeting attended by
     such director by teleconference.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

          Six Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($625) per calendar quarter for each
     member of the Compensation Committee for their service as a member of the
     Compensation Committee, plus an additional Two Thousand Five Hundred
     Dollars ($2,500) per calendar quarter for service as Chair of the
     Compensation Committee, each payable at the end of each calendar quarter;
     plus

          One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) for each regular or special Compensation
     Committee meeting attended by such director in person, Five Hundred Dollars
     ($500) for each regular or special Compensation Committee meeting attended
     by such director by teleconference.

<PAGE>
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

          Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) per calendar quarter for each member
     of the Nominations Committee for their service as a member of the
     Nominations Committee, plus an additional One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty
     Dollars ($1,250) per calendar quarter for service as Chair of the
     Nominations Committee, each payable at the end of each calendar quarter;
     plus

          Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for each regular or special Nominations
     Committee meeting attended by such director in person, Two Hundred Fifty
     Dollars ($250) for each regular or special Nominations Committee meeting
     attended by such director by teleconference.
# C_2016392EN.01002202.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission

(Case T-471/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis))

(2016/C 392/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), and Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2572 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2572

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify the definition of 
               a deposit broker, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2019

Mr. Foster (for himself and Mr. Stivers) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to clarify the definition of 
               a deposit broker, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF DEPOSIT BROKER.

    Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831f) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (g)(2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (I), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
                    ``(J) an affiliate of the insured depository 
                institution, with respect to funds of an account or 
                benefit plan described in section 
                3(a)(4)(B)(viii)(I)(ee) of the Securities Exchange Act 
                of 1934 for which the insured depository institution 
                acts as custodian or directed trustee, to the extent 
                the affiliate provides brokerage, advisory, or agency 
                services to participants or beneficiaries of such 
                account or benefit plan and such services result in the 
                investment of the assets of such benefit plan or 
                account as deposits of such insured depository 
                institution.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Consideration of Certain Information Shared With 
Affiliates.--Information regarding deposit accounts shared by an 
insured depository institution with its affiliates that is a 
communication described under section 603(d)(2)(ii) of the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act shall not be a factor in determining whether--
            ``(1) an affiliate of an insured depository institution, 
        including an individual employed by such affiliate, is 
        considered to be a deposit broker; or
            ``(2) deposits resulting from referrals of customers to an 
        affiliate of an insured depository institution are subject to 
        the restrictions of subsections (a) and (b).''.
                                 <all>
```
# Distribution’s commander delivers commencement address to 19 new 2nd lieutenants

/ Published June 10, 2016
BUCKNELL, Pennsylvania, 
Marking the 100th year of the Reserve Officer Training Corps program, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution commander Army Brig. Gen. Richard Dix commissioned 19 new 2nd lieutenants from the Bison Battalion at Bucknell University.
During his remarks, Dix reminded the cadets to thank those whose shoulders they stand on during their graduation – their parents, family, friends, professors, teachers, and mentors.

Asking the cadets if they knew why Francis Scott Key ended the national anthem with a question mark, Dix reminded them that at any given moment, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines serving so that we can continue to be a free country.  

Dix talked about the importance of the pinning ceremony the cadets were about to experience, and how they would be continuing an important military legacy created by President Woodrow Wilson.

The history of the Bison Battalion dates back to 1862, with the formation of the Bucknell Guard to fight in the American Civil War.  During the Korean War, Bucknell University petitioned the Department of Defense to establish an official ROTC unit on campus.  The unit began in 1951, and commissioned its first officer in 1952. Five schools now make up the Battalion, including Bucknell University, Susquehanna University, Bloomsburg University, Lycoming College, and Pennsylvania College of Technology.

The new lieutenants join 2,176 others who have gone before them in the Bison Batallion to become part of the ranks of the future leaders of the active United States Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Torres, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 419]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), dated June 24, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C), a court must follow three analytical steps to determine whether to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level. *647First, the court must decide whether the mitigating circumstances alleged by the defendant are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act guidelines *(see*Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006]; *People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]). Second, the court must decide whether the defendant has adduced sufficient evidence to meet his or her burden of proof in establishing that the alleged mitigating circumstances actually exist *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d at 861; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 128). The defendant must prove the facts supporting a downward departure by a preponderance of the evidence (see *People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d at 861; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 128). Third, if the defendant has satisfied the first two steps, the court must exercise its discretion in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d at 861; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 128).

Here, the defendant failed to identify any mitigating factor that would warrant a downward departure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3765-3766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Consent Decree Under The Clean Water Act

    Notice is hereby given that a consent decree in United States v. 
Atlantic Pipeline Co. And Sun Pipeline Co. Civil

[[Page 3766]]

Action No. 96-583 (W.D. Pa.), was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 30, 
1997.
    In this action the United States sought civil penalties under 
Section 311(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(b)(3) for 
a discharge of gasoline from a pipeline into a pond and unnamed 
tributary of the West Branch of Richard Run near the Village of 
Robinson, Pennsylvania in May 1994. The consent decree provides that 
the defendants will pay a civil penalty of $40,000 to the United 
States. The defendants have already paid a civil penalty of $40,000 to 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the subject discharge.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Please address comments to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
D.C. 20044 and refer to United States v. Atlantic Pipeline Co. And Sun 
Pipeline Co., DJ Ref. #90-5-1-1-4317.
    Copies of the proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office 
of the United States Attorney, Western District of Pennsylvania, 633 
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Pittsburgh, PA 15219; the Region III 
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; and at the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. 
A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained in person or by mail 
at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005, (202-624-0892). When requesting a copy by mail, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $3.75 (twenty-five cents per 
page reproduction costs) payable to the ``Consent Decree Library.''
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 98-1709 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 10-6925.

#### Douglas Whisnant, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 586,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8691.

178 L. Ed. 2d 427,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 426.
No. 09-10876.

#### Donald Bullcoming, Petitioner v. New Mexico.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8709.

November 8, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for appointment of counsel granted. Jeffrey L. Fisher, Esquire, of Stanford, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
No. 09-11306.

#### Jessie Johnson, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 692,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9439.

178 L. Ed. 2d 522,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 873, 131 S. Ct. 175, 178 L. Ed. 2d 105, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6743.
No. 10-205.

#### U.S. Information Systems, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 3, et al.

562 U.S. 1053, 131 S. Ct. 626,

178 L. Ed. 2d 452,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8966.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 290.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2595 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase the income limit 

of the simplified needs test. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. KINZINGER (for himself and Mrs. BEATTY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to increase 

the income limit of the simplified needs test. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Middle 

5 Class Access to Higher Education Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SIMPLIFIED NEEDS TEST. 

7 Section 479(b)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ss(b)(1)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking 

10 ‘‘$50,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2595 IH

1 (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking 

2 ‘‘$50,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 

5 with respect to award year 2019–2020, and each suc6 ceeding award year. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16657]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Fossil Energy
[FE Docket No. 98-30-NG]


Rock-Tenn Co., Mill Division, Inc; Order Granting Long-Term 
Authorization to Import Natural Gas From Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Order.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy 
gives notice that it has issued an order granting Rock-Tenn Company, 
Mill Division, Inc. (Rock-Tenn) long-term authorization to import up to 
0.8 Bcf annually of natural gas from Canada. The authorization is for a 
10-year term commencing November 1, 1998, through October 31, 2008. 
This gas may be imported from Canada at the international border point 
near Highgate Springs, Vermont (Phillipsburg, Quebec).
    This Order may be found on the FE web site at <a href="http://
www.fe.doe.gov">http://
www.fe.doe.gov</a>., or on our electronic bulletin board at (202) 586-7853. 
It is also available for inspection and copying in the Office of 
Natural Gas & Petroleum Import and Export Activities Docket Room, 3E-
033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8 
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., June 11, 1998.
John W. Glynn,
Manager, Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Natural Gas & Petroleum 
Import and Export Activities, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-16657 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# C_2015346EN.01002201.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-245/13) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single payment scheme - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Articles 51, 53, 73 and 73a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))

(2015/C 346/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell, M. Holt and E. Jenkinson, and subsequently by M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), as regards one entry in Annex I to the decision relating to a 5,19 % extrapolated correction applied to expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the financial year 2010, amounting to EUR 16 513 582,57.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
Ordering TB Materials

from CDC is as easy as 1,2,3

Did you know that CDC has free tuberculosis (TB) education materials?

Visit Visit CDC On Demand 

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/pubs/

Search Search available materials and 

add selected items to your cart. 

To view all available 

TB materials, select 

“Tuberculosis (TB)”

under the “Topic”

drop down menu. 

To view TB 

materials by 

program, select 

“Tuberculosis - 

For Health Care 

Providers”

or 

“Tuberculosis 

- For Patients 

and the General 

Public” under the 

“Program” drop 

down menu.

Check 

Out

Once satisfied with 

all of the requested 

materials, click 

“My Cart” in the 

upper right corner 

of the page. From 

the “My Cart” page, 

you can see all 

selected materials, 

update your 

order quantity, 

continue shopping, 

or proceed to 

checkout.

For questions, please contact CDC-INFO: 

https://www.cdc.gov/cdc-info/index.html