alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w28






Exhibit 10.28






Description of Independent Director Compensation




     For 2010, the compensation for the independent directors of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(Group Inc.), which was awarded on January 26, 2011, consisted of the following:




	 	•	 	a $75,000 annual retainer in the form of 465 vested restricted stock units (RSUs) to
each independent director, other than H. Lee Scott, Jr., who became a director in May
2010 and received a prorated retainer of $50,000 in the form of 310 vested RSUs;
	 
	 	•	 	a $25,000 committee chair fee in the form of 155 vested RSUs to each of John H.
Bryan, Stephen Friedman and James A. Johnson, and a prorated committee chair fee of
$8,333 in the form of 52 vested RSUs to James J. Schiro, who became Chair of the Audit
Committee in September 2010; and
	 
	 	•	 	an annual grant of 2,500 vested RSUs to each independent director, other than Mr.
Scott, who became a director in May 2010 and received a prorated annual grant of 1,667
vested RSUs.





     In addition, each of Rajat K. Gupta and Ruth J. Simmons, who retired as directors in May 2010,
received a prorated retainer of $31,250 and a prorated annual grant of $168,085. Because they were
no longer on the Group Inc. board of directors (the Board), the Board determined to pay their
prorated compensation in cash rather than equity.



     RSUs granted to independent directors for 2010 services are fully vested and provide for
delivery of the underlying shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share (Common Stock), of
Group Inc. on the first eligible trading day in the third quarter of the year following the year of
the director’s retirement from the Board.



     The Board, upon the recommendation of Group Inc.’s Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee, has a stock ownership policy that requires each independent director to beneficially own
at least 5,000 shares of Common Stock or fully vested RSUs within two years of becoming a director.
All independent directors of Group Inc. are in compliance with this policy.



     Independent directors of Group Inc. are permitted to participate in Group Inc.’s employee
matching gift program on the same terms as non-participating managing director employees generally.
Under the program for 2010, Group Inc. matched gifts of up to $20,000 in the aggregate per
participating individual.



     Independent directors receive no compensation other than directors’ fees.
| 1.   | The Quarterly Report of the Issuers on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 27, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Issuers. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                   |                                                               |   |   |
|--------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                   |                                                               |
|   | /s/ DONALD J. PERCENTI |                                                               |
|   | Name:        | Donald J. Percenti                                                 |   |
|   | Title:       | President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer) |   |
No. 09-9375.

#### Emmanuel Obi Maduka, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1058, 130 S. Ct. 2357,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2958.

176 L. Ed. 2d 577,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals *578for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice So-tomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 330 Fed. Appx. 295.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-01101-CR

Style: Quentin Lionel Laws v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: March 30, 2016

Type of motion: Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Anders Response

Party filing motion: Pro se appellant

Document to be filed: Anders Response

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: March 15, 2016

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current due date: April 15, 2016

Date requested: N/A (30 days from granting of motion)

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 5, 2016.

 No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file his pro se Anders response 

is granted because the trial clerk filed confirmation of delivery of the records to the 

pro se appellant on March 2, 2016. However, appellant is warned that no further

extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances, and if his response

is not filed by May 5, 2016, the Clerk of this Court may mark this case ready for

submission without appellant’s pro se Anders response.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Court

Date: April 5, 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

April 10, 2023

Contact: Tara Tadlock

(202) 694-7176

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Washington, DC 20004-2901

PRESS RELEASE

Washington, DC—The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) is pleased to 

announce the assignment of Mr. Chad Stott as Resident Inspector at the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. Mr. Stott joined the Board as a 

Resident Inspector on April 10, 2023.

As a Resident Inspector at the Pantex Plant, Mr. Stott will advise the Board on the overall 

safety conditions of defense nuclear facilities at Pantex and will participate in technical 

reviews by the Board and its staff related to the design, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of defense nuclear facilities. He will also act as the Board’s liaison 

with Pantex Plant management, state and local agencies, the public, and industry 

officials.

Mr. Stott joins the Board after working at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a 

Resident Inspector and a regional Engineering Inspector. Mr. Stott also worked as a 

nuclear engineer at the Norfolk and Puget Sound Naval Shipyards as well as a 

sustainment engineer for the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development 

and Engineering Center at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.

Mr. Stott holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the 

University of Alabama in Huntsville.
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

      ( print page 10240)    
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.

*Docket Number:*                     08-054. Applicant: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53715-1218. Instrument: FEI Titan 80-200 Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 5819, February 2, 2009.                

*Docket Number: 08-059.*                     Applicant: Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322-4250. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1011. Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 5819, February 2, 2009.                

*Docket Number: 08-060*. Applicant: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Instrument: FEI Inspect S Scanning Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 5819, February 2, 2009.                

Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

Dated: March 4, 2009.

Chris Cassel,

Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration

[FR Doc. E9-5088 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 09-9563.

#### Nancy Rosario, Petitioner v. Dawn Chamberlain, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Muncy, et al.

559 U.S. 1111, 130 S. Ct. 2415,

176 L. Ed. 2d 932,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3720.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### Lillian Kowalsky, Respondent, v Milyas Khan, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 666]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant’s motion papers made out a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the accident *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955). Thus, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with admissible proof that she sustained a serious injury *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*supra;*Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230, 235; *Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017).

The plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The chiropractor’s affirmation submitted by the plaintiff did not constitute competent evidence *(see, Cubero v DiMarco,*272 AD2d 430; *Garvey v Riela,*272 AD2d 519; *Young v Ryan,*265 AJD2d 547). Furthermore, the plaintiffs affidavit, which consisted merely of self-serving, subjective complaints of pain, was without probative value *(see, Young v Ryan, supra,*at 548; *Rum v Pam Transp.,*250 AD2d 751). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
QUEVEDO-WOOLF v. OVERHOLSER, et al.

361P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

James P. Hoffman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Overholser, Merry Eileen.

William W. Cameron, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for State.

Jessica S. Bullock, Carolyn J. Woodruff, Attorneys at Law, Greensboro, for Quevedo-Woolf, Celina.

Daniel Carter, for Carter, Daniel.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
No. 09-1103.

#### Ute Distribution Corporation, Petitioner v. Ken L. Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

560 U.S. 905, 130 S. Ct. 3285,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1185,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4012.

May 17, 2010.

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

Same case below, 584 F.3d 1275.
No. 09-9914.

#### Juan Garcia-Sandoval, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1113, 130 S. Ct. 2420,

176 L. Ed. 2d 935,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3854.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 790.
No. 09-9401.

#### Nathan Messick, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1055, 130 S. Ct. 2358,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3031.

176 L. Ed. 2d 572,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 831.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10569-10570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-345-001]


The United Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

March 2, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2009, the United Illuminating 
Company (United Illuminating) filed additional information to its 
November 23, 2008 proposed modifications to Schedule 21-UI of the ISO 
New England Inc. Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff and 
Localized Facilities for three United Illuminating transmission 
projects from Category B Network Load, pursuant to the Commission's 
Order issued January 23, 2009, see The United Illuminating Co., 126 
FERC ] 61,063 (2009).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and

[[Page 10570]]

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion 
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must 
be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to 
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3858691808cadafaaada690b6b3b3acb1b783a5a6b1a0eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="45030017060a2b292c2b20163035352a373105232037266b222a33">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5216 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 09-9332.

#### Louis Robenson, Petitioner v. Stephen Haszinger.

559 U.S. 1104, 130 S. Ct. 2407,

176 L. Ed. 2d 920,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3783.

May 3, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 26 So. 3d 1290.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)
AND 18 U.S.C. §1350



In connection with the quarterly report of
Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William B. Olson, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.



Date: December 9, 2004



/s/ WILLIAM B. OLSONWilliam B. Olson Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
No. 09-8333.

#### Evelyn Bowman-Goone, Petitioner v. Joseph Gordon, Justice, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, et al.

559 U.S. 1117, 130 S. Ct. 2430,

176 L. Ed. 2d 944,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3690.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 993, 130 S. Ct. 1738, 176 L. Ed. 2d 215, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2260.
No. 09-9530.

#### Gregory Chambers, Petitioner v. Ohio.

559 U.S. 1098, 130 S. Ct. 2384,

176 L. Ed. 2d 778,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3494,

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County, denied.
#### Kim Pellew, Respondent, v Benjy Goldstein et al., Defendants, and Jeffrey Klein, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 349]

In *513an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the defendant Jeffrey Klein appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sweeny, J.), entered November 23, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $33,000.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant Jeffrey Klein committed dental malpractice in failing to take timely remedial measures after he lodged a root canal file in her mouth during the course of a dental procedure. At trial, the plaintiffs expert testified that the plaintiffs tooth was removed because of an infection. However, he failed to testify that the infection, which existed before the plaintiff visited Dr. Klein, became untreatable because of Dr. Klein’s alleged malpractice. Accordingly, there was no proof that any departure from accepted practice was a proximate cause of injury or damage *(see, Lyons v McCauley,*252 AD2d 516). Therefore, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed and the complaint dismissed *(see, Falotico v Frankel,*232 AD2d 607). Bracken, Acting P. J., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                Exhibit 23.5
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                                                            
                Independent Auditors' Consent
                              
                              

We   consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the
Registration Statements (Nos. 33-32378, 33-67924,  333-48643
and 333-66873) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos.
333-00815  and  333-66899)  on  Form  S-3  of  Devon  Energy
Corporation  of  our report dated January 20,  1999  to  the
shareholders  of Northstar Energy Corporation, appearing  in
this Form 10-K.



                             (SIGNED)  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
                                       Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                       Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Alberta
Canada
March 24, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,921
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          428,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,220
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,517,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,493
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               971,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,098,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,098,448)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,098,448)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Jonathan E. BRUNSON

247P16-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Jonathan Eugene Brunson, for Brunson, Jonathan Eugene.

Sherri Horner Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of February 2019 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."