alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Description of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors of Patheon




 Exhibit 10.19 
 Patheon Inc. 
 Description of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 

Each of the non-employee directors of Patheon Inc. (“Patheon”), other than the Chair of Patheon’s Board of Directors (the
“Board”), is entitled to receive an initial retainer upon appointment or election to the Board; an annual Board retainer; an annual committee chair retainer, if applicable; an annual committee member retainer, if applicable; and meeting
attendance fees, as applicable. The Chair of the Board is entitled to receive an initial retainer upon appointment or election to the Board; an annual chairperson retainer; an annual committee chair retainer, if applicable; and an annual committee
member retainer, if applicable. Certain of these amounts are either required to be, or may be, paid in the form of deferred share units (“DSUs”) under the terms of the Directors Deferred Share Unit Plan (the “DSU Plan”). The
following table summarizes the retainers and fees to which Patheon’s non-employee directors are entitled, including the amounts paid in cash and/or DSUs. 
  

			
	Initial Retainer (upon being appointed or elected to Board)	  	$32,000 per annum(1)
		
	Board Retainer	  	$67,000 per annum(2)
		
	Chairperson Retainer	  	$140,000 per annum(3)
		
	Committee Chair Retainer	  	
		
	 Chair of Audit Committee
	  	$14,000 per annum(4)
		
	 Chair of Other Standing Board Committee
	  	$5,000 per annum(4)
		
	Committee Member Retainer	  	
		
	 Member of Audit Committee
	  	$6,000 per annum(4)
		
	 Member of Other Standing Board Committee
	  	$4,000 per annum(4)
		
	Board and Standing Committee Meeting Attendance Fees	  	$1,500 per meeting(5)

  

	(1)	 Payable entirely in DSUs. 



	(2)	 $32,000 of this amount is payable in DSUs, and the remainder is payable in cash or DSUs at the election of the director. 



	(3)	 $73,000 of this
amount is payable in cash, and the remainder is payable in cash or DSUs at the election of the Chair. 



	(4)	 Payable entirely
in cash. 



	(5)	 Payable entirely
in cash. The Chair of the Board is not entitled to any meeting attendance fees for Board or standing committee meetings.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Dakota Growers PastaCompany, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended January 31,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

Date:  March 16, 2005

 
|   | /s/  Thomas P. Friezen     |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas  P. Friezen         |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

1

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0100

_____________________________
B ILAL H ASSON L EVERETT ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffectiv e Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

July 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final u ntil disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Bilal Hasson Leverett, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallah assee , for Respondent

.
No. 11-7778.

#### Hozay Royal, Petitioner v. Robert Durison.

565 U.S. 1182, 132 S. Ct. 1154,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1026,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 917.

January 23, 2012.

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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4947 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4947

To expand the boundaries of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2006

  Mr. Bachus introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To expand the boundaries of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cahaba River National Wildlife 
Refuge Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Cahaba River 
        National Wildlife Refuge and the lands and waters in such 
        refuge in Bibb County, Alabama, as established by the Cahaba 
        River National Wildlife Refuge Establishment Act (Public Law 
        106-331).
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES.

    (a) Expansion.--The boundaries of the Refuge are expanded to 
include land and water in Bibb County, Alabama, depicted as ``Proposed 
National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Boundary'' on the map entitled 
``Cahaba River NWR Expansion'' and dated _______.
    (b) Availability of Map.--The Secretary shall make the map referred 
to in subsection (a) available for inspection in appropriate offices of 
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

SEC. 4. ACQUISITION OF LAND AND WATER IN EXPANDED BOUNDARIES.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may 
acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or 
exchange the land and water, and interests in land and water (including 
conservation easements), within the boundaries of the Refuge as 
expanded by this Act.
    (b) Manner of Acquisition.--All acquisitions of land or waters 
under this section shall be made in a voluntary manner and shall not be 
the result of forced takings.
    (c) Inclusion in Refuge; Administration.--Any land, water, or 
interest acquired by the Secretary under this section--
            (1) shall be part of the Refuge; and
            (2) shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance 
        with--
                    (A) the National Wildlife Refuge System 
                Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.);
                    (B) the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge 
                Establishment Act; and
                    (C) this Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 American Standard Companies Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, G. Peter DAloia, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ G. Peter DAloiaG. Peter DAloia
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 3, 2004

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is
accompanying the Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a
separate disclosure document.
No. 09-1129.

#### Timothy Conrad Rehak and Mark Paul Naylon, Petitioners v. United States.

559 U.S. 1070, 130 S. Ct. 2130,

176 L. Ed. 2d 727,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3313.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 589 F.3d 965.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41192 Summary Calendar

YANKEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

GREG M DYKEMAN

Appellee

VERSUS

DUNKIN’DONUTS INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-136)

May 21, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. appeals the district court ’s decision

denying its motion for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Yankee Enterprises, Inc. is a franchisee that operates a

Dunkin’ Donuts store in Beaumont, Texas. In 1994, Yankee brought

suit against Dunkin’ Donuts alleging that Dunkin Donuts had

breached the franchise agreement and violated the DTPA. A jury

awarded Yankee $747.723.00. The Fifth Circuit reversed and

rendered, holding tha t there was insufficient evidence of

causation. Yankee Enterprises, Inc. v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. , No.

96-40735, slip op. (5th Cir. July 8, 1997). After the case was

remanded to the district court, Dunkin’ Donuts moved for sanctions

purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, alleging various unreasonable and

vexatious conduct by counsel for Yankee Enterprises. The district

court denied the sanctions motion. Dunkin’ Donuts timely appeals.

We review a denial of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1 927 for

abuse of discretion. M atta v. May
, 118 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir.

1997). Section 1927 applies to an attorney “who so multiplies the

proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1927. In this case, most of the conduct alleged to be vexatious

was allowed by the district court during trial. Typically,

protection under § 1927 should come from the district court. This

appeal presents a c lose case, but upon review of the record as a

whole, we cannot say that the district court abused its broad

discretion by denying the sanctions motion. See Pease v. Pakhoed

Corp.
, 980 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1993)(di strict court has broad

discretion in denying sanctions under § 1927).Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 09-848.

#### Alvin L. Williams, Petitioner v. Charles A. Thorsen, III.

559 U.S. 1007, 130 S. Ct. 1896,

176 L. Ed. 2d 365,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2674,

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1142, 367 Ill. Dec. 610, 982 N.E.2d 288.
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 New England Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David J. OConnor, President, Chief Executive Officer and chief 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:



| | 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David J. OConnorDavid J. OConnorPresident, Chief Executive Officer and chief financial officer and DirectorNovember 3, 2003




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



19
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         376,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               457,949
<PP&E>                                         124,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          252,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<COMMON>                                        66,205
<OTHER-SE>                                     956,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518,814
<SALES>                                        743,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               743,954
<CGS>                                          249,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  747,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (269,302)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (269,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (269,302)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2017240EN.01000101.xml

| 25.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8470 — DAAM/InfraVia/FIH/AI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 240/01)

On 6 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8470. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8470. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2016

a0518 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

152484

DRAGEN PERKOVIC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 152484

COA: 321531

Wayne CC: 09

- 019740

- NF

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 10, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk t o schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing whether the plaintiff, or someone in his behalf, satisfied the notice

requirements of MCL 500.3145(1). The parties should not submit mere restatements of

their application papers.
Exhibit
32.2




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 China Agritech, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yau-Sing Tang, the
Chief Financial Officer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




November
11, 2009





/s/
      Yau-Sing TangChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4882 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4882

 To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 
War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for 
                     the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2006

 Mr. Pombo (for himself, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Pearce, and Mrs. Christensen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure the proper remembrance of Vietnam veterans and the Vietnam 
War by providing a deadline for the designation of a visitor center for 
                     the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor 
Center Deadline Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

    Section 6 of Public Law 96-297 (as added by Public Law 108-126) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Deadline.--Notwithstanding any other law, the visitor center 
authorized by subsection (a) shall be located in the open land in the 
triangular land area between Henry Bacon Drive, 23rd Street, 
Constitution Avenue, and the Lincoln Memorial, and final approval of 
the visitor center shall occur no later than 30 days following 
enactment of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitor Center Deadline 
Enforcement Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2





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 IPC Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy Whelan, Chief 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:





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





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











By:   /S/    TIMOTHY WHELANTimothy Whelan Chief Financial Officer August 14, 2002
No. 09-897.

#### Armando Narciso-Cabrera, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1008, 130 S. Ct. 1904,

176 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2575.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-8880.

#### Marcus Corson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 997, 130 S. Ct. 1751,

176 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2310.

March 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 579 F.3d 804.