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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3
                       Incentive Compensation Arrangement
                       ----------------------------------

                                Thomas S. Gayner

This letter outlines your incentive compensation arrangements for 2003.
Incentive compensation, expressed as a percentage of base salary, will be based
on growth in book value per share of Markel Common Stock. For 2003 the relevant
measure will be growth in book value per share for 2003. We anticipate in the
future that this measure will be a weighted average for the period beginning
January 1, 2003 to the measurement date until we reach a five year weighted
average. To provide for a transition the minimum bonus for 2003 will be
$200,000.

Growth in Book Value Per Share    Bonus as % of Base Salary
Under 11%                         0%
11%                               25%
12%                               30%
13%                               40%
14%                               50%
15%                               60%
16%                               75%
17%                               90%
18%                               100%
19%                               110%
20%                               125%
21%                               145%
22%                               170%
23%                               200%
24%                               250%
Over 24%                          Discretionary

For purposes of this arrangement, book value calculations are adjusted to
exclude the benefit of issuing equity securities at prices above the preceding
year end book value per share.

Should your employment terminate during the year no pro rata payments will be
made. To be eligible for incentive compensation, you must be an employee in good
standing when incentive compensation payments are made. If you have been on
probation or in a performance improvement program, you will not be paid
incentive compensation for the time you were on probation or in the program.
Remember, all incentive compensation plans are discretionary and subject to
change or modification at any time.


Thomas S. Gayner              7/28/03     /s/ Thomas S. Gayner           7/28/03
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------
Employee Name (Please Print)  Date        Employee Signature                Date


/s/ Pamela J. Perrott         7/28/03
--------------------------------------
Human Resources Signature     Date
(Invalid if not signed by HR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

WILLIAM A. FISHER, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 5:06-CV-024-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) ECF

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States

Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on October 3, 2006. No written

objections have been filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and that the abovestyled and -numbered cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:06-cv-00024-C-BG Document 18 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
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 Quarterly Report of Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a
Highriver Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Kawamura, President 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  operation of the
Company.


Date: July 30, 2007                               By: /s/ Brian Kawamura
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Brian Kawamura
                                                     President and Director

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Terra Firma Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Highriver Acquisition Corp. and
will be retained by Terra Firma Technologies,  Inc. f/k/a Highriver  Acquisition
Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
Office of International Affairs

Ethan Lucarelli, Chief 

Jared Carlson, Deputy Chief 

Nese Guendelsberger, Deputy Chief 

Thomas Sullivan, Deputy Chief 

Michele Wu-Bailey, Associate Chief/Chief of Staff 

Kathleen Collins, Assistant Chief 

Kathryn O’Brien, Assistant Chief 

Sarah Van Valzah, Assistant Chief for Management 

Olga Madruga Forti, Special Counsel 

Edward Carlson, Senior Legal Advisor

Office of the Chief

Revised: 4/2024

Denise Coca, Chief 

Francis Gutierrez, Deputy Chief

Telecommunications & Analysis Division Global Strategy & Negotiation Division

International Radio 

Communication Branch

Alicia Tambe, Chief

Multilateral & Regional 

Affairs Branch

Dante Ibarra, Chief

Vacant, Chief

Roxanne Mcelvane Webber, Deputy Chief

James McLuckie, Chief

Cross Border Negotiations & Treaty 

Compliance Branch
Case 3:04-cv-02320-M Document 4 Filed 10/28/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 31
Case 3:04-cv-02320-M Document 4 Filed 10/28/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 32
Case 3:04-cv-02320-M Document 4 Filed 10/28/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 33
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 46 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice and 

the Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2022 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BOOZMAN, 

Mr. BRAUN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. 

CRUZ, Mr. DAINES, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. 

HAWLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LANKFORD, 

Mr. LEE, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. TUBERVILLE, 

and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible Fear 

Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of 

Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 46 IS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 

2 Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland 

3 Security relating to ‘‘Procedures for Credible Fear Screen4 ing and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Re5 moval, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers’’ 

6 (87 Fed. Reg. 18078 (March 29, 2022)), and such rule 

7 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-106043, 333-115137, 333-125918, 333-139074, 333-148198, 333-149411, 333-157610 and 333-165058) of
FormFactor, Inc. of our report dated February 17, 2011 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San
Jose, California
February 17, 2011

---



QuickLinks
# C_2018083EN.01001202.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 15 December 2017 — Patent-och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson

(Case C-705/17)

(2018/C 083/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Patent-och registreringsverket

Applicant:

Defendant: Mats Hansson

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the global assessment of all relevant factors which is to be made in an assessment of the likelihood of confusion may be affected by the fact that an element of the trade mark has expressly been excluded from protection on registration, that is to say, that a so-called disclaimer has been entered on registration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the global assessment of all relevant factors which is to be made in an assessment of the likelihood of confusion may be affected by the fact that an element of the trade mark has expressly been excluded from protection on registration, that is to say, that a so-called disclaimer has been entered on registration?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the disclaimer in such a case affect the global assessment in such a way that the competent authority has regard to the element in question but gives it a more limited importance so that it is not regarded as being distinctive, even if the element would de facto be distinctive and prominent in the earlier trade mark? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the disclaimer in such a case affect the global assessment in such a way that the competent authority has regard to the element in question but gives it a more limited importance so that it is not regarded as being distinctive, even if the element would de facto be distinctive and prominent in the earlier trade mark?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and the answer to the second question in the negative, can the disclaimer even so affect the global assessment in any other way? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and the answer to the second question in the negative, can the disclaimer even so affect the global assessment in any other way?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008, L 299, p. 25).

1

---
(LOGO)
10 South Broadway                   Telephone 314 444 1400    Fax 314 444 1470
Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102-1761







                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. (an
indirect wholly owned  subsidiary of Citicorp) and  subsidiaries'  (the Company)
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers   Association  of    America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR
MORTGAGE  BANKERS as of and  for   the  year ended December 31, 1997 included in
the  accompanying  management  assertion.  Management  is  responsible  for  the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility
is  to  express  an  opinion  on  management's  assertion  about  the  Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe our examination provides a
reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not  provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries complied with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended  December  31,  1997 is fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.

                                                  /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

February 20, 1998
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

OraSure Technologies, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-168972) and Form S-8 (No. 333-118385,No. 333-102235, No. 333-50340, No. 333-48662, No. 333-138814 and No. 333-151077) of OraSure Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2011, with respect to the balance sheets of OraSure Technologies, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of OraSure Technologies, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 10, 2011
# C_2017382EN.01002601.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Appeal brought on 29 March 2017 by Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-187/16: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-158/17 P)

(2017/C 382/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: P. Koch, abogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 20 September 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20581

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MANUEL GONZALEZ CAAL, also known as Jose Manuel Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-12-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Manuel Gonzalez Caal 

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v.

Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 562 n.28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which this court 

concluded that the generic, contemporary definition of “sexual abuse of a 

minor” does not mandate that the age of consent be below 17 years old and does 

not include the asserted age-differential requirement. The unopposed motion 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20581 Document: 00513012842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-20581

for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-20581 Document: 00513012842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Eugene Edward ULRATH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1336

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2017347EN.01001301.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

(Case C-460/17)

(2017/C 347/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Valériane SNC

Appellant:

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

1

2

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CELIA HERNANDEZ, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1099-K

§ ECF

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The District Court reviewed the findings, conclusions and recommendation for

plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts the findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the final decision

of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed this 22 day of August, 2007. nd

___________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         DATA IS FOR CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999,
         SEE FN #1 BASIS OF PRESENTATION
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         16,032
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  20,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,102
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,464
<PP&E>                                         42,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          42,546
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       140
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,484
<SALES>                                        187,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,042
<CGS>                                          115,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               55,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,355
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7,355
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .53



</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

MICHAEL J. SMIKUN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

CALLAGY LAW, P.C. 

Mack Cali Centre II

650 From Road – Suite 565

Paramus, New Jersey 07652

Telephone: (201)261-1700

Facsimile: (201)621-6236

E-mail: msmikun@callagylaw.com 

[Additional counsel listed on signature page.]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PARKRIDGE LIMITED AND MABEL MAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

corporation, by Mabel Mak, and MABEL MAK, 

an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYZEN, INC., a California 

corporation, and PRAVEEN NARRA 

KUMAR, an individual,

 Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

INDYZEN, INC., a California corporation, 

Counter-Plaintiffs,

v.

PARKRIDGE LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

corporation, by Mabel Mak, BOON 

GLOBAL LIMITED, a Hong Kong 

company, F8 VIETNAM COMPANY 

LIMITED, a Vietnam company, 

CALIFORNIA FITNESS & YOGA 

CENTERS COMPANY LIMITED, a 

Vietnam company, and RANDY 

DOBSON, an individual,

 Counter-Defendants.

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 197 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Case No. 4:16-cv-07387-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation to Continue Pretrial Conference, 

Jury Selection, and Trial, due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Granting the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Pretrial Conference, Jury Selection, and Trial.

2. The Pretrial Conference set for August 9, 2021, the Jury Selection set for August 25, 2021, 

and the Trial set for August 30, 2021 are continued to the following dates:

Event Deadline

Final Pretrial Conference October 11, 2021

Jury Selection November 3, 2021

Jury/Bench Trial November 8, 2021

Length of Trial To be determined 

Dated: __________________________ ______________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

February 7, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. 

February 23, 2022 at 8:00 a.m. 

February 28, 2022 at 8:00 a.m. July 26, 2021

Case 4:16-cv-07387-JSW Document 197 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 2