alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PNK EX 10.30 12.31.2011






Exhibit 10.30
Summary of Director Compensation
Director Fees 
   
The compensation of the Company's non-employee directors is paid in the form of an annual retainer, meeting and chair fees and stock-based awards. The fees that each non-employee director (other than the Chairman of the Board) or committee chair, received for his service during 2011 are the following:   
		
	•
	An annual retainer of $60,000; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee as of May 24, 2011; prior to that date the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee received a $10,000 retainer; 


		
	•
	An additional $7,500 retainer for the Chair of the Risk Management Committee prior to May 24, 2011.  On May 24, 2011, the Risk Management Committee was dissolved by the Board of Directors; 


		
	•
	An attendance fee of $1,500 for each regularly scheduled Board or committee meeting, other than meetings of the Audit Committee which had a meeting fee of $2,000 per meeting and the Advisory Committee (which was formed in January 2011 and disbanded in May 2011) which had a fee of $2,000 per meeting or per day of service; and 


		
	•
	An attendance fee of $500 for each telephonic special meeting of the Board of Directors.




Director Fees Paid to the Chairman of the Board


The Chairman of the Board receives an annual retainer of $185,000.  The annual retainer paid to the Chairman of the Board was in lieu of the fees described above except that the Chairman of the Board receives fees for attending meetings of the Compliance Committee (which are $1,500 per meeting).  In addition, the Chairman of the Board served on the Advisory Committee and received $2,000 per meeting or per day of service.  
Equity Grants 
 
In 2011, Pinnacle granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 10,000 options, which were granted on the date of the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The exercise price for each option was the closing price of Pinnacle Common Stock on the date of grant. All of the options vested immediately upon the date of grant.  In addition, Pinnacle granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 6,000 restricted stock units, which were granted and vested on the date of the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

248 

TP 12-01865 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF SENECA PATTERSON, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JONATHAN D. HITSOUS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered October 3, 2012) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination revoked the postrelease supervision of

petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to

CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination revoking his period

of postrelease supervision and imposing a time assessment of 16

months. “ ‘[A] determination to revoke parole [or postrelease

supervision] will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were

followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such

determination’ ” (Matter of Graham v Dennison, 46 AD3d 1467, 1467

[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mosley v Dennison,

30 AD3d 975, 976, lv denied 7 NY3d 712). Contrary to petitioner’s

contention, “the testimony of petitioner’s parole officer at the

hearing before the [Administrative Law Judge] provides substantial

evidence to support the determination with respect to the [eight]

charges concerning the violations by petitioner of his curfew [and

domestic violence conditions]” (Mosley, 30 AD3d at 976; see Graham, 46

AD3d at 1467; see generally People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130,

139).

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The inverse problem of refraction travel times, part II: Quantifying refraction nonuniqueness using a three-layer model      

      January 1, 2005    

This paper is the second of a set of two papers in which we study the inverse refraction problem. The first paper, "Types of Geophysical Nonuniqueness through Minimization," studies and classifies the types of nonuniqueness that exist when solving inverse problems depending on the participation of a priori information required to obtain reliable solutions of inverse geophysical problems. In view of the classification developed, in this paper we study the type of nonuniqueness associated with the inverse refraction problem. An approach for obtaining a realistic solution to the inverse refraction problem is offered in a third paper that is in preparation. The nonuniqueness of the inverse refraction problem is examined by using a simple three-layer model. Like many other inverse geophysical problems, the inverse refraction problem does not have a unique solution. Conventionally, nonuniqueness is considered to be a result of insufficient data and/or error in the data, for any fixed number of model parameters. This study illustrates that even for overdetermined and error free data, nonlinear inverse refraction problems exhibit exact-data nonuniqueness, which further complicates the problem of nonuniqueness. By evaluating the nonuniqueness of the inverse refraction problem, this paper targets the improvement of refraction inversion algorithms, and as a result, the achievement of more realistic solutions. The nonuniqueness of the inverse refraction problem is examined initially by using a simple three-layer model. The observations and conclusions of the three-layer model nonuniqueness study are used to evaluate the nonuniqueness of more complicated n-layer models and multi-parameter cell models such as in refraction tomography. For any fixed number of model parameters, the inverse refraction problem exhibits continuous ranges of exact-data nonuniqueness. Such an unfavorable type of nonuniqueness can be uniquely solved only by providing abundant a priori information. Insufficient a priori information during the inversion is the reason why refraction methods often may not produce desired results or even fail. This work also demonstrates that the application of the smoothing constraints, typical when solving ill-posed inverse problems, has a dual and contradictory role when applied to the ill-posed inverse problem of refraction travel times. This observation indicates that smoothing constraints may play such a two-fold role when applied to other inverse problems. Other factors that contribute to inverse-refraction-problem nonuniqueness are also considered, including indeterminacy, statistical data-error distribution, numerical error and instability, finite data, and model parameters. ?? Birkha??user Verlag, Basel, 2005.

## Citation Information
### LAO S , 2 0 2D

W Stat e o f Wisconsi n DEPARTMEN TO F NATURA L RESOURCE S 101 S.Webste r Stree t Bo x 792 1 Madiso n W l 53707-792 1 Scot t Walker , Governo r Cath y Stepp , Secretar y Telephon e 608-266-262 1 Tol l Fre e 1-888-936-746 3 TT YAcces s vi a rela y- 71 1
Augus t 18,201 4

M s
. Susa n Hedma n USEPA-Regio nV (R-19J ) 7 7 Wes t Jackso n Boulevar d Chicag o L L6060 4

Subject : Wisconsi n SI PRevisio n - Majo r Modificatio n- A M - 21

- 1 2 Dea r Ms
. Hedman : I n a n Augus t

11 , 201 2 SI Previsio n submitta l fo r AM-21-12 , w e inadvertentl y supplie dareques t wit hatypographica l error . Th e reques t

ha dthi s text : "I n a n Apri l 15 , 201 4 submittal , WDN Rsupplie dadditiona l informatio n regardin g thi s SI Psubmitta l b y furnishin g informatio n o n s . N R404.02(27)(a)5m , Wis
. Adm
. Cod e whic hwa s finalize di n Augus t 2011
. W e als o reques t that EP A complet e th e rulemakin g proces s fo r thi s rul e section. " Th e correc t

reques t tex t is : "I n a n Apri l 15 , 201 4 submittal , WDN Rsupplie dadditiona l infonnatio n regardin g thi s SI Psubmitta l b y furnishin g infonnatio n o n s . N R405.02(27)(a)5m , Wis
. Adm
. Cod e whic hwa s finalize di n Augus t 2011
. W e als o reques t that EP A complet e th e rulemakin g proces s fo r thi s rul e section. " Pleas e accep t

our apologie s fo r

thi s typographica l error . W e appreciat e the wor k complete db y you r

staf f i norde r t o complet e th e wor k

usin g th e paralle l processin g SI Pprocedur e i n atimel y manner . I f yo u o r you r staf f ha s an y question s regardin g thi s SI Prevision , pleas e contac t Ralp hPatterso n a

t 608-267-7546
. Sincerely ,

5ar t Sponseller , Director , Burea u o f

A nManagemen t cc : Andre aMorgan , USEPA-Regio nV(AR-18J) , 7 7 Wes t Jackso n Boulevard , Chicago , I L60604-350 7 Ralp hPatterso n - WDN R Kristi nHar t

- WDN R

dnr.wi.go v wisconsin.go v 

### Naturally

# WISCONSI N .PRINTED } ON RECYCLED PAPER
# C_2004225EN.01001701.xml

| 9.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3513 — CATERPILLAR/XPART)

(2004/C 225/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 August 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition web site
  (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3513. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3513. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
# EUR-Lex - 32004R0049 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004R0049

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2004 of 12 January 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 007 , 13/01/2004 P. 0007 - 0008 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2004

of 12 January 2004

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 January 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 January 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 12 January 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. BENJAMIN COOPER, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 170 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Exhibit 32.2  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 Medizone International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Steve M. Hanni Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer  Date: May 11, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.  This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  SLC_278600.1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Largest recent impact craters on Mars: Orbital imaging and surface seismic co-investigation      

      October 27, 2022    

Two 130+ meter diameter impact craters formed on Mars during the later half of 2021. These are the two largest fresh impact craters discovered by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter since operations started 16 years ago. The impacts created two of the largest seismic events (magnitudes greater than 4) recorded by InSight during its three year mission. The combination of orbital imagery and seismic ground motion enables the investigation of subsurface and atmospheric energy partitioning of the impact process on a planet with a thin atmosphere and the first direct test of Martian deep-interior seismic models with known event distances.The impact at 35°N excavated blocks of water ice, which is the lowest latitude ice has been directly observed on Mars.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Colin Dundas, Ph.D.

##### Research Geologist

Astrogeology Science Center

cdundas@usgs.gov

928-556-7143

## Related Content

#### Colin Dundas, Ph.D.

##### Research Geologist

Astrogeology Science Center

cdundas@usgs.gov

928-556-7143

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Landslide monitoring in the Atlantic Highlands area, New Jersey      

      August 25, 2017    

View Report

Shallow and deep-seated landslides have occurred episodically on the steep coastal bluffs of the Atlantic Highlands area (Boroughs of Atlantic Highlands and Highlands) in New Jersey. The oldest documented deep-seated landslide occurred in April 1782 and significantly changed the morphology of the bluff. However, recent landslides have been mostly shallow in nature and have occurred during large storms with exceptionally heavy rainfall. These shallow landslides have resulted in considerable damage to residential property and local infrastructure and threatened human safety.

The recent shallow landslides in the area (locations modified from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) consist primarily of slumps and flows of earth and debris within areas of historical landslides or on slopes modified by human activities. Such landslides are typically triggered by increases in shallow soil moisture and pore-water pressure caused by sustained and intense rainfall associated with spring nor’easters and late summer–fall tropical cyclones. However, the critical relation between rainfall, soil-moisture conditions, and landslide movement has not been fully defined. The U.S. Geological Survey is currently monitoring hillslopes within the Atlantic Highlands area to better understand the hydrologic and meteorological conditions associated with shallow landslide initiation.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Pamela Reilly

##### Hydrologist

New Jersey Water Science Center

jankowsk@usgs.gov

609-406-3810

#### Alex R Fiore

##### Hydrologist / Groundwater Specialist 

New Jersey Water Science Center

afiore@usgs.gov

609-771-3954

## Related Content

#### Pamela Reilly

##### Hydrologist

New Jersey Water Science Center

jankowsk@usgs.gov

609-406-3810

#### Alex R Fiore

##### Hydrologist / Groundwater Specialist 

New Jersey Water Science Center

afiore@usgs.gov

609-771-3954

### Study Area

### Contact

#### New Jersey Water Science Center

3450 Princeton PikeSuite 110Lawrenceville, NJ08648United States

(609) 771-3900

(609) 771-3915

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards
                  - United States
                  - Atlantic Highlands area
                  - New Jersey

View 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 Uranium Power Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Thornton Donaldson, acting Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer 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)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Thornton
DonaldsonActing  Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2003
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned, James D. Brown, the Chief Financial Officer of NutriSystem, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that based on the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | The Companys Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September 30, 2006 (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                                           
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2006 |  | /S/ JAMES D. BROWN                                                        
|                        |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
|                        |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on February 20, 2009, Stepan Company, Natural Products Dept., 100 W. Hunter Avenue, Maywood, New Jersey 07607, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleCocaine (9041)
IIBenzoylecgonine (9180)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than June 29, 2009. Dated: April 17, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-9807 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P