alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2506

_____________________________
M ARY C AROLINE H IGGINS , Former Wife
, Appellant,

v.

T HOMAS N. B ROWN , Former Husband
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John Jay Gontarek , Judge

.
March 29 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and O STERHAUS and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ.,

concur

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

.

_____________________________

Shannon L. Novey, Christin F. Gonzalez, and Jerome M. Novey of Novey Law, Tallahas see , for Appellant.

Kyle S. Bauman and Matthew J. Ausley of Anchors Smith Grimsley, Fort Walton Beach
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 10.1 (bd)


 


AMENDMENT
NUMBER 6

TO THE

SAUER-DANFOSS LASALLE FACTORY EMPLOYEE SAVINGS PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1,
1998)


 


By virtue and in exercise of
the amending power reserved to Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company (the “Company”) by Section
14.1 of Sauer-Danfoss LaSalle Factory Employee Savings Plan as amended and
restated effective January 1, 1998 (the “Plan”) and pursuant to the authority
delegated to the undersigned officer of the Company by the Employee Benefits
Committee of the Company, the Plan is hereby amended and, effective as of
February 1, 2003, by adding the following new Section A-9 to follow immediately
after Section A-8 of the Appendix A entitled “Application of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001:”


 


“A-9.   Catch-up Contributions.    All Employees who are eligible to make
elective deferrals under the Plan and who have attained age 50 before the close
of the Plan Year shall be eligible to make “Catch-up Contributions” in
accordance with, and subject to the limitations of, Section 414(v) of the Code.
Such Catch-up Contributions shall not be taken into account for purposes of the
provisions of the Plan implementing the required limitations of Sections 402(g)
and 415 of the Code or for purposes of the Matching Contribution provisions of
Section 5.1(b) of the Plan. The Plan shall not be treated as failing to satisfy
the provisions of the plan implementing the requirements of Section 401(k)(3),
40I(k)(l1), 401(k)(12), 410(b), or 416 of the Code, as applicable, by reason of
the making of such Catch-up Contributions.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has authorized the execution on its behalf this Amendment Number 6,
this 20th day of January, 2003.


 


	
   

  	
  SAUER
  DANFOSS (US) COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Kenneth D. McCuskey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Kenneth D. McCuskey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vice President Finance
# C_2008170EN.01000501.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5171 — Enel/Acciona/Endesa)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 170/02)

On 13 June 2008, 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 website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5171. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5171. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### Eleanor Fortson et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (White, J.), entered March 14,1984, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff Eleanor Fortson was injured when she tripped and fell on an allegedly defective step as she descended a stairway leading from the Penn Station Railroad Terminal to defendant Transit Authority’s 34th Street subway station. Signs posted at the top of the stairway indicated that it led to a change booth and a subway entrance. A sign at the bottom of the stairway facing pedestrians approaching the steps read “Exit”. The stairway serves no function other than to provide a means of ingress to and egress from defendant’s 34th Street subway station. On this record it cannot be disputed that the Transit Authority does not own, operate or maintain the stairway, which is apparently owned by the Pennsylvania Tunnel & Terminal Railroad and/or the Penn Terminal Real Estate Co. Special Term granted the Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that, absent ownership or control, it had no duty to maintain the stairway. We disagree.

“The duty of á railroad company towards its passengers extends to the exercise of reasonable care in affording them safe approaches to the stations and platforms, and this duty applies not only to such approaches as may have been constructed and owned by the company, but to those constructed and owned by others, if constantly and notoriously used by passengers as a means of approach.” *(Bruno v Vernon Park Realty,*2 AD2d 770, 771.) Since it is apparent that the stairway’s sole function is to provide terminal users with access to its subway station, the Transit Authority had a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that the stairway was kept in a safe condition, or at least to take such precautions or give such warnings as would protect those using the stairway against unforeseen danger. In the circumstances presented, given the singular use to which the stairway is put, we find that the imposition of such a duty upon the Transit Authority is not an undue burden.

We note that *Garcia v Arbern Realty Co..*(89 AD2d 616), upon which Special Term relied, is inapposite. There, unlike here, where the stairway is used exclusively by the Transit Authority’s passengers, the stairway in question was used in common by all of the building’s business tenants and their customers. In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to fasten a duty of due care with respect to the maintenance of the stairway on the defendant tenant, at most a common user.

*59Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TOM DOUGLAS HOOVER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3387

[January 24, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

472016CF000194A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2183 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, New 

York, as the ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2183 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, New 

4 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Vincent 

5 Palladino Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2264 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2264

      To extend the suspension of duty on Copper 8-quinolinolate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the suspension of duty on Copper 8-quinolinolate.

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

SECTION 1. COPPER 8-QUINOLINOLATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.31 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit106-CashBonusPlanDescription (3)


Exhibit 10.6




 
Written Description of 
SunEdison, Inc. Cash Incentive Plan 
Covering Executive Officers 
 
SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison" or the "Company") maintains a cash incentive plan that covers the Chief Executive Officer and the Company's other executive officers. Under current practice, the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") makes annual cash awards under the plan to executive officers to recognize and reward Company and individual performance. 
For each participant, the Committee establishes threshold, target and maximum bonus levels that are defined as a percentage of the participant's base salary. The “threshold” level of performance for a particular performance goal represents the lowest level of performance for which any bonus would be earned on that performance goal. The "maximum" level of performance represents the level for which the maximum bonus would be earned for that particular goal, and the "target" represents the target level of performance. The actual bonus, if any, attributable to each performance goal is calculated based on the actual performance compared to these “threshold," "target" and "maximum" performance levels. The "threshold," "target" and "maximum" levels for each category of executives under the plan are generally as follows: 
 


	
				
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Threshold 
 
	Target 
 
	Max 
 

	CEO, SunEdison
	63%
	125%
	250%

	CEO, SunEdison Semiconductor
	50%
	100%
	200%

	EVP
	38%
	75%
	150%

	SVP
	30%
	60%
	120%

	VP
	     15-20%
	30-40%
	50-80%




The plan has two main components: a Company milestone component and a personal goal component.  The Company-based and personal performance metrics account for varying levels of the total potential award under the 2012 short term incentive plan as follows: 
 


	
			
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Company Metrics 
 
	Personal Metrics 
 

	CEO
	80%
	20%

	EVP, SVP
	80%
	20%

	VP
	60%
	40%






 
 
As a result, the bonus paid to the CEO, if any, is 80% tied to Company metrics.  The Company's executive officer s have a number of quarterly, semi-annual and/or annual performance objectives including those tied to the Company's financial performance, along with a number of individual performance and financial objectives applicable to each executive officer's functional area. These objectives are reviewed and approved by the Committee on an annual basis. Based on the achievement against these performance objectives, the executive officers are entitled to receive cash awards, which are generally paid on an annual basis.  


The plan is non-contractual.  The Company maintains the right to terminate or amend the cash incentive plan at any time.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41498

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUADALUPE DE HOYOS-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-553-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe De 

Hoyos-Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De Hoyos-Lopez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41498 Document: 00514039774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 16-41498

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41498 Document: 00514039774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
[No. 19860-6-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Debora Ann Damon-Rau, *Respondent,*and Glen Wesley Rau, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 93-3-00294-4, Toni A. Sheldon, J., entered June 26, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Pharmos Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Haim Aviv, Chief
      Executive 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





/s/ 
                Haim AvivHaim
                Aviv, Chief Executive OfficerNovember
                10, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1923 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1923

  To suspend temporarily the duty on booster and master cyl asy-brake.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2005

 Mr. Hulshof introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on booster and master cyl asy-brake.

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

SECTION 1. BOOSTER AND MASTER CYL ASY-BRAKE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.87.01      Master cylinder     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         assembly for                                                       31/2008
                         braking systems,
                         not incorporating
                         a vacuum booster,
                         designed for use
                         in hybrid motor
                         vehicles of
                         heading 8703
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         8708.39.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008177EN.01000601.xml

| 12.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 177/02)

On 23 June 2008, 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(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5047. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5047. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
Ex10.15 DirectorComp2014




Exhibit 10.15




SUMMARY OF NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
As of January 1, 2015
	
					
	Function
	 
	Amount Paid
	 
	Form of Payment

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Stock Retainer
	 
	$75,000 annually
	 
	Payable in quarterly increments in shares of company common stock at its fair market value

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Cash Retainer
	 
	$45,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$15,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$30,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$10,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$20,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Nominating & Governance Committee Members Meeting Fee
	 
	$10,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Nominating & Governance Committee Chair Meeting Fee
	 
	$15,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Lead-Non Management Director Fee
	 
	$20,000 annually
	 
	Payable in cash in quarterly increments

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Meeting Travel Expenses
	 
	Reasonable and actual
	 
	Cash reimbursement
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2229 

To amend title 36 of the United States Code to ensure that memorials 

commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may 

contain religious symbols, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. LEWIS of California, and 

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

A BILL 

To amend title 36 of the United States Code to ensure 

that memorials commemorating the service of the United 

States Armed Forces may contain religious symbols, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘War Memorial Preser5 vation Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2229 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS AS PART OF 

2 MILITARY MEMORIALS. 

3 (a) AUTHORITY.—Chapter 21 of title 36, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 2113. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of mili7 tary memorials 

8 ‘‘(a) INCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS AUTHOR9 IZED.—To recognize the religious background of members 

10 of the United States Armed Forces, religious symbols may 

11 be included as part of— 

12 ‘‘(1) a military memorial that is established or 

13 acquired by the United States Government; or 

14 ‘‘(2) a military memorial that is not established 

15 by the United States Government, but for which the 

16 American Battle Monuments Commission cooperated 

17 in the establishment of the memorial. 

18 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.—No court cre19 ated by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and 

20 the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to 

21 hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpreta22 tion of, or the validity under the Constitution of, this sec23 tion. 

24 ‘‘(c) MILITARY MEMORIAL DEFINED.—In this sec25 tion, the term ‘military memorial’ means a memorial or 

26 monument commemorating the service of the United 
3 

•HR 2229 IH 

1 States Armed Forces. The term includes works of archi2 tecture and art described in section 2105(b) of this title.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘2113. Inclusion of religious symbols as part of military memorials.’’. 

Æ