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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

              ROCKVILLE BANK SHORT TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

                      ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Eligibility

      -     All participants must be classified as "Officer" status and on the
            payroll as of June 30th of the plan year.

      -     Employees meeting all eligibility requirements, but promoted or
            hired to the Officer classification after January 1st and before
            June 30th, will be eligible for a prorated payout based on time in
            the Officer classification.

      -     Any employees hired or promoted to the Officer classification after
            June 30th, or from the payroll or leaving the Officer status through
            resignation, termination, or demotion before December 31st of the
            incentive plan year will not be eligible for any payouts.

Incentive Pool

The annual incentive pool is determined at the sole discretion of the Board of
Directors of Rockville Bank (the "Board") and the President of Rockville Bank
(the "President"). It is based on the performance of Rockville Bank and its
Officers against defined goals. The basic pool is established by factoring the
market based incentive targets against salaries and accumulating the totals. The
Board and the President factor those totals as to underachievement, achievement
or over achievement of the targets. The Board and the President will determine a
threshold level of performance in the event of underachievement.

Annual Measurements

The goals driving this annual plan will be financial and customer focused
targets and will be applicable to all Officers of the Bank. Unless noted below,
the customer focused targets will be the measurements of performance for the
annual incentive payouts.

            -     Total Assets

            -     Efficiency Ratio

            -     Return On Average Assets

            -     Customer Satisfaction/Mystery Shop data

All incentive eligible functions at the Bank will be measured against the
generic targets and their incentive payout will be completely dependent on that
performance.

Process

Once the President of the Bank and the Board have established the targets, each
direct report will prepare initiatives that will support the attainment of each
target. The direct report will ask the

<PAGE>

same of his/her subordinates and seek approval from the President for the plan.
Once approval is obtained, the Executive Vice President of the Bank will report
on progress toward the targets quarterly at regularly scheduled Board meetings.
At year-end, the final outcomes are prepared for the President who will assess
the performance relative to the goals. This shall be the basis for the incentive
decision.

The Incentive Plan is by no means a guarantee that an incentive payout will be
made, but is based on business conditions and are at the discretion of the Board
and the President of the Bank.
# 11j 1 

# n- tJS 

# t&tL

'

.. ·f RECEIVED IN (a- \1- 2Dl6

• COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

## ----~~E~~~~J£~~~~------~J~UN~~~2D1~5--------

- vs. S+**~" ~**  0 ...{ .'\bet Acosta, CterJt

___**,~dXL_O_J"_/.E.'Xa5'---------------**



## ---1-ik**Q£a~l)~ ~>** **l£+it~_is_:1_ Pc+t1i_o~-~-Whlti~~** **---J-li_lbd_a_Wl2it_o.L~as_Cu_BQ_us_be.etmb.Eg_1!o_1.D_t2_wA\tt_ -----t-2k3_ed_D_is~d_\Lo_o}_o~_B_a(L(LisJ:oDl.jkarud_ffiilaEAb.aM_** **-e--~-=35~d._ahD_S_b_aub_E.\a2tEd_o_£ ~±A.m£_~~w_Qilof_bah~-** 

### ---i-'="C.D=-~-e_os_\~_to_bE~dlLdEd_Ao 

## ±b:6.**TLL.~-0** 

## fu b:\ioJSclL_**----~--bllid_a_Wci±_o~~~s_L.-2D-2.0\3_.~le.CA_ffirl.E~_**

### -----~-~·~·-**-~-COD_~_to_QI-.5.Q_a~_fu ~-1-J1Jh-t:OS_lo_~PJS5_LLOJ**  __**i----f·l{la£fb_1_Q_'LO_G.~- Cll~_W_B-** **J~LJL8-o** L 

## 1ht**sJ:c.i:£_Q£_s~o~_ l---f-±o._~Qoili:£Jb·c.tt:** **~-a.~_j_55U£d__\]j_L CG.tr~C£ch_2]_2.QJ3** **l---t~i-~cA..81Ud_b~waoAEd_bLEva_6** 

### Flno:£s _Ass 

### \56u+**l----~-f}~_~lt~c~-\~~al~c.a.J~D.~{£_11±t_o_u£Q£~**

### l----~-~~_ffiu~~_\_i-GOOM£_M~.tldJ.n--**~J;~l£A.d.au11** __ 

### 1---tad.drusss**lhl.~_ai \E.~ai1:GJ.S_6t** **\_~.Yc.i~_ut_~,s~o:L**

, ___**--~-CillmEL. 1~:al(X)u~'b** **\_ct_d_~ot_s_ubrYtit_&~± '-~\+.-'-­** 

, __ -1--"\J**~.~_\~l_YLC2:SJ~_.1haSch::,o_'LC>\n_:\D_~_Qc~ :h-~­** 

### ,_---t-nas_~Dt_\1EciB.tled_a_~.S-~D~_oL4E_S±m:&**PuB_Q.a~­ -•--~-B-~_t\)_~_o_&,_t&:lblD~-bas~_\N_~~-L£_\1okEa£_Cnu.e.us_o.**  ol_

### 1---1-00-~Jn 

## T**CGA.~uu ~--tiOt£J'LtitaNi\~j-~.--** 

# •
EXHIBIT 10.10

                        ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Addendum (the  "Addendum") is made effective as of the 15th day of
December,  1999 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and  between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and Jan R.  Van  Gorder
effective as of December 16, 1997.

         WHEREAS,  the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of March
9,  1999  agreed  to extend  the term of the  Agreement  for a period of one (1)
additional  year which  extended the term of the Agreement to expire on December
15, 2000 instead of December 15, 1999; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  of the  Company  at its  meeting  of
December  14, 1999 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

         1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with  respect  to the  Term is hereby
amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2001.

         2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.

ATTEST:                                              ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/ Mark T. Torok                         By: /s/ F.William Hirt
    Mark T. Torok                                 F. William Hirt
     Assistant Secretary                           Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/ Sheila M. Hirsch                          /s/ Jan R. Van Gorder
    Sheila M. Hirsch                              Jan R. Van Gorder
     Executive Secretary                          6796 Manchester Beach Rd.
                                                  Fairview, PA   16415





                                       62
EXHIBIT 31.2: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification  I, Wang Lei, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Junlian Integrated Surveillance, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ Wang Lei Wang Lei, Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-6489.

#### Corey Louis Hines, Petitioner v. David Hayes, et al.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 434,

178 L. Ed. 2d 337,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8179.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### Antonia Fomina, Respondent, v DUB Realty, LLC, et al., Appellants, and Century Vertical Systems, Inc., Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 687]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), *540entered May 5, 2016, which, in this action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff tripped and fell while exiting an elevator in the apartment building in which she lived, denied as untimely the motion of defendants DUB Realty LLC and JRC Management LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

In assessing the timeliness of a motion for summary judgment, the proper measure is whether the motion is served within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue, not whether the motion is filed within that time frame *(see Derouen v Savoy Park Owner, L.L.C.,*109 AD3d 706 [1st Dept 2013]; CPLR 2211). Here, the motion was timely served, and therefore the matter is remanded to the motion court for a consideration of the merits of the summary judgment motion in the first instance *(see e.g. Higgins v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.,*93 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2012]; *Commissioner of the State Ins. Fund v Weissman,*90 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur— Tom, J.R, Friedman, Renwick, Kahn and Kern JJ.
No. 09-10814.

#### Clifford Arnell Gooden, III, Petitioner v. Iowa.

562 U.S. 1103, 131 S. Ct. 813,

178 L. Ed. 2d 547,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9555.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 853, 131 S. Ct. Ill, 178 L. Ed. 2d 68, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5898.
No. 10-7021.

#### Charlotte Diane Costley, Petitioner v. Social Security Administration.

562 U.S. 1114, 131 S. Ct. 850,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9803,

178 L. Ed. 2d 566,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7721.

#### Joseph Edward McConnel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1133, 131 S. Ct. 977,

178 L. Ed. 2d 746,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 400.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until January 31, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
## Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N NO3 Extinction THRO1 NIA 2000 21 62.43 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 13.61 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 62.37 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 17.7 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 57.06 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 10.7 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 65.18 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 10.34 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 61.07 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 16.35 

## 308.11 Total 68.7 Total 61.622 Average 13.74 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 22%
Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N NO3 Extinction THRO1 NIA 2000 21 22.97 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 1.57 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 21.94 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 1.43 THRO1 NIA 2002 18 21.93 THRO1 NIA 2002 18 1.85 THRO1 NIA 2003 20 21.25 THRO1 NIA 2003 20 1.58 THRO1 NIA 2004 22 21.23 THRO1 NIA 2004 22 1.17 

## 109.32 Total 7.6 Total 21.864 Average 1.52 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 7%
Lostwood - Worst - Total Extinction Lostwood - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N NO3 Extinction LOST1 NIA 2000 19 75.25 LOST1 NIA 2000 19 15.96 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 80.22 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 29.33 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 67.55 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 23.33 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 65.55 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 19.4 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 81.67 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 26.71 

## 370.24 Total 114.73 Total 74.048 Average 22.946 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 31%
Lostwood - Best - Total Extinction Lostwood - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N NO3 Extinction LOST1 NIA 2000 18 24.98 LOST1 NIA 2000 18 2.42 LOST1 NIA 2001 23 22.83 LOST1 NIA 2001 23 1.65 LOST1 NIA 2002 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2002 23 1.78 LOST1 NIA 2003 23 22.19 LOST1 NIA 2003 23 1.65 LOST1 NIA 2004 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2004 23 1.8 

## 114.44 Total 9.3 Total 22.888 Average 1.86 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 8%
No. 10-6559.

#### Eugenia B. White, Petitioner v. Fairfax County, Virginia.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 650,

178 L. Ed. 2d 488,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9421,

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 466.
No. 09-11455.

#### Toby Lynn Bishop, Petitioner v. Sheryl Foster, Warden.

562 U.S. 881, 131 S. Ct. 202,

178 L. Ed. 2d 121,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6814.

October 4, 2010.

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

*122Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 738.
No. 10-529.

#### Arthur Parra, Sr., et al., Petitioners v. Langdon D. Neal, Chairman of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, et al.

562 U.S. 1137, 131 S. Ct. 914,

178 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 382.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 614 F.3d 635.
# Land and Maritime's POW/MIA ceremony honors service members, family sacrifices

/ Published Oct. 8, 2015
COLUMBUS, Ohio,
2017-1798.

#### State v. Davis.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105129, 2017-Ohio-8479. On emergency motion to stay. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
No. 10-606.

#### In re Scott Alan Heimermann, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1090, 131 S. Ct. 807,

178 L. Ed. 2d 546,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9568,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

American DentalPartners, Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference inthe registration statements (Nos.: 333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077, 333-59079, 333-34522, 333-98545 and 333-107795) on Form S-8 of American Dental Partners, Inc. of our report dated February 25, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statements ofincome, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of American Dental Partners, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of American Dental Partners, Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 11, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         510,055
<SECURITIES>                                   194,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               708,993
<PP&E>                                         255,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 888,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,632,998
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,772,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   888,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,367
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  328,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (251,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (251,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (251,767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





18
      U.S.C.
      Certification of Michael S. Marcus


Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer of


Duckwall-ALCO
      Stores, Inc




I,
      Michael S. Marcus, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Duckwall-ALCO
      Stores, Inc., hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
            The
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended January 28,
                2007,
                which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements
                of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
                as
                amended; and


(b)
            The
                information contained the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
                year ended January 29, 2006, which accompanies this certification,
                fairly
                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                of
                operation of Duckwall-ALCO Stores,
                Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and will be retained by Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Dated:
      April 23, 2007


By: */s/
      Michael S, Marcus*


Michael S. Marcus


Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015346EN.01002202.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 10 September 2015 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-346/13) (1)

1

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - Agri-environment - Adequate checks - Lump-sum financial corrections))

(2015/C 346/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented initially by: I.-K. Chalkias, X. Basakou and A.-E. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by: A.-E. Vasilopoulou, G. Kanellopoulos and O. Tsirkinidou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 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 123, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 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, in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 2 % on the Hellenic Republic) in respect of the ‘Organic farming’ and ‘Organic livestock’ agri-environment sub-measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/214/EU of 2 May 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, in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 2 % on the Hellenic Republic) in respect of the ‘Organic farming’ and ‘Organic livestock’ agri-environment sub-measures;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

1

---