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






RPX CORPORATION


COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR NON - EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(AS AMENDED May 23, 2017)


A.     Cash Compensation 


		
	1.
	Directors will not receive any cash compensation for their service on the Board of Directors (the “Board”) or Board committees.




		
	2.
	The reasonable expenses incurred by directors in connection with attendance at Board and Board committee meetings will be reimbursed upon submission of appropriate documentation.




B.    Equity Compensation 


		
	1.
	Non-employee directors will receive an annual award of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) with a target value determined based on Board and committee service as set forth in the table below.  A non-employee director who joins the Board within 12 months prior to an Annual Meeting of Stockholders will receive an additional pro-rated annual award in conjunction with the director’s initial appointment or election to the Board, with the target value determined based on the number of days of Board service that will be provided prior to the first Annual Meeting of Stockholders that occurs following the director’s appointment.  




	
		
	Board Service
	$200,000

	plus (as applicable):
	 

	Board Chair
	$27,500

	Audit Committee Chair
	$22,500

	Other Audit Committee Members
	$10,000

	Compensation Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Other Compensation Committee Members
	$6,000

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	$10,000

	Other Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Members
	$5,000






		
	2.
	The RSUs will vest in equal quarterly installments on August 20, November 20, February 20, and May 20, provided the director remains in continuous Service through the applicable vesting dates, with immediate vesting in full in the event of a change in control of the Company.  The Board or Compensation Committee will grant the RSUs under the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  A non-employee director who previously was an employee is eligible for annual awards. 











C.    General 


		
	1.
	The number of RSUs subject to each annual grant will be determined by dividing the target value of a director’s grant by the then-current denominator for RSUs as established from time to time by the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee will determine the value of the denominator at least quarterly based on the average value of the Company’s common stock for the previous quarter.




		
	2.
	Each director must retain 100% of the shares issued upon the vesting of RSU grants hereunder until he or she meets the ownership level specified for non-employee directors in the Company’s Stock Ownership Guidelines.




		
	3.
	All RSUs will be settled by issuing shares upon vesting.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Desert climate and soils

Filters

              - science_science(6)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(14)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_video(36)
              - multimedia_video-149194(25)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - utah(1)

## By Year

Podcasts        September 26, 2021        USGS Outstanding in the Field: Biocrusts (Ep. 9)

Podcasts        April 14, 2020        Eyes on Earth Episode 22 – Meet the Mendenhall Fellow

Podcasts        June 8, 2010        To Burn or Not to Burn? A Framework to Answer the Question

Interviews        March 2, 2010        Public Lecture: Extreme Science: Understanding our Earth
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - (-)documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

## By Year

Brochures        October 17, 2019        Powell Center 2019 Seminar: NASA’S GRACE SATELLITE: WHAT IT CAN AND...

Infographics        March 2, 2022        Discover Ecosystems
Exhibit 34.3



|     |                             | 
|---- | --------------------------- | 
|LOGO |                             | 
|     | KPMG LLP                   
|     | 1601 Market Street         
|     | Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

TransCentra, Inc.:

We have examined managements assessment for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that TransCentra, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commissions Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2012. TransCentra, Inc. has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31,
2012. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assessment about the Companys compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed
to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or
any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2012 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

February 6, 2013
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PRSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly report of Innovative Companies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Carol Dore-Falcone, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|

|
|

/s/ Carol Dore-FalconeCarol Dore-FalconeVice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 on Form 10-K of Hanover Equipment Trust
2001B (the Trust) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David A.
Vanaskey, Jr., Vice President of Wilmington Trust Company, the trustee for the
Trust, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:  (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 Trust. Date: March 29, 2004 /s/ DAVID A. VANASKEY, JR.Name:
    
    David A. Vanaskey, Jr.Title:
    
    Vice President of Wilmington TrustCompany (Trustee)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hanover Equipment Trust 2001B and will be retained by Hanover
Equipment Trust 2001B and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. This certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
accompanies this report on Form 10-K and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Trust for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Trust, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Tasha GRIGGS, individually and on behalf of her minor son, Austin Griggs v. BOUNCE N' AROUND INFLATABLES, L.L.C. and Jack Alan LeBlanc

NO. 2018-C-0726

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

Granted.

And, whereas, the Court has this date, pursuant to Article 5, Section 5, of the Constitution of Louisiana, made and issued the following order, to wit-"It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the District Court and the Court of Appeal send up the record in Duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified."

Now, therefore, the said District Court and the Court of Appeal is hereby commanded, in the name of the State of Louisiana and of this Honorable Court, to send up forthwith to this Court, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 1, at the City of New Orleans, the record in duplicate of the above-entitled case.
Garrett EURE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0829

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tommy Lee JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AAM-12-364-E May 29, 2012

Exemption No. 10108A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0727

Mr. Steven A. Darr Chief Inspector Signature Engines, Inc. 4760 Airports Road Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Darr:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10108. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 8, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Signature Engines, Inc. (Signature Engines), for an extension of Exemption No. 10108. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Signature Engines, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Signature Engines.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10108 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Em ployees of Signature Engines are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Signature Engines part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10108 to July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
# C_2020343EN.01000801.xml

| 15.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9435 — ADNOC/OCI/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 343/04)

On 2 September 2019, 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:

| — | 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 32019M9435. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9435. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

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

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5833 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5833

  To require upon request a probable cause hearing in connection with 
      property seizures relating to certain monetary instruments 
                             transactions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2014

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require upon request a probable cause hearing in connection with 
      property seizures relating to certain monetary instruments 
                             transactions.

    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 ``Taxpayer Protections Against Abusive 
Seizures Act''.

SEC. 2. PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY SEIZURES 
              RELATING TO CERTAIN MONETARY INSTRUMENTS TRANSACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--If a hearing by a court of competent jurisdiction 
is requested within 14 days after the date on which notice is provided 
under subsection (b), property seized or restrained pursuant to section 
5317(c)(2) of title 31, United States Code, with respect to an alleged 
violation of section 5324 of title 31 of such Code, shall be returned 
unless the court holds an adversarial hearing and finds within 14 days 
of such request that there is probable cause to believe that there is a 
violation of such section 5324 involving such property.
    (b) Notice.--Notice shall be provided to each person from whom 
property is seized or restrained pursuant to section 5317(c)(2) of 
title 31, United States Code, of the rights of such person under 
subsection (a).
    (c) Effective Date.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with 
respect to property seized or restrained after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of Louisiana, BY AND THROUGH its Attorney General James CALDWELL v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline PLC

NO. 2018-CC-0894

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018.

Denied.
Docket Number: FAA-2013-0548
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 20549
 
 Form 40-F/A
  o
    
    Registration statement pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 or
 þ
    
    Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
 Commission File Number: 001-32179
 
 InterOil Corporation
  Yukon Territory, Canada
  1311
    
    Not Applicable(Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
 Level 1
60-92 Cook Street
Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia
Telephone Number: +61 (7) 4046-4600    CT Corporation Systems
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10011
Telephone Number: (212) 894-8940
 Copy to:
 Mark Laurie
InterOil Corporation
Level 1
60-92 Cook Street
Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia
Telephone Number: +61 (7) 4046-4600
  Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Shares
    
    NYSE Amex Stock Exchange
 None
 None
  þ Annual Information Form
    
    þ Audited Annual Financial Statements
  o  þ
 þ o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  EXHIBIT INDEXEX-99.1EX-99.2EX-99.3EX-99.4EX-99.5    Table of Contents  EXPLANTORY NOTE
  
 EXHIBIT INDEX
  EXHIBITNUMBER
    
    DESCRIPTION1.
    
    
    Managements Discussion and Analysis for the year ended
December 31, 2008.2.
    
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.3.
    
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.4.
    
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.5.
    
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  INTEROIL CORPORATION/s/ Phil E. MulacekPhil E. MulacekChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6207

ROBERT A. CUFFEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NURSE LUCY, Medical Department; RONALD COKER; E. BEALOR, Assistant Warden; MR. DOTSON, Warden of Lawrenceville Correctional Center; MR. RUFFIN, Assistant of Operations; MS. BADGETT, Medical Head Nurse, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-888) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert A. Cuffee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert A. Cuffee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cuffee v. Lucy , No. CA-02-888 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 8, 2003; entered Jan. 9, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 GoEnergy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Terry Fields, 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Terry Fields Terry Fields. Principal Financial Officer October 1, 2008