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





EXHIBIT 10.5







California Resources Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan
2016 Annual Incentive Award
Award Terms
	
		
	Feature
	Approved Terms

	Award Type


	Cash; Performance-Based Award under section 5.2 of the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”)

	Grant Date


	March 30, 2016

	Target Incentive Amount
	Individual amount as approved by the Compensation Committee on February 11, 2016, for each of the executive officers of the Company.  In no event may the maximum amount payable with respect to any 2016 Annual Incentive Award exceed $1.65 million.



	Performance Period
	January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016



	Performance Goals
	See Exhibit 1.  Payout percentages for each performance measure will be linearly interpolated for results between threshold and target and between target and maximum.  



	Vesting Date




	Award will vest upon certification by the committee appointed by the Board to administer the LTIP (the “Committee”) of attainment of Performance Goals following end of Performance Period.



	Committee Negative Discretion Factor
	Downward discretion may be applied, at the Committee’s sole discretion, to the bonus payouts to take into consideration factors such as, among others, the state of the industry and the Company’s financial health overall as well as the Company’s competitive relationship to its peer companies.  The Committee does not have the discretion to increase bonus payouts. 



	Settlement
	Payout of Target Incentive Amount (subject to proration as described below) times Total Performance Measure Result times Committee Negative Discretion Factor (if any) will be paid in cash as soon as administratively practicable following the Vesting Date, but in no event later than March 15, 2017.



	Retirement with Consent of Company, Involuntary Termination by the Company without Cause (as determined by the Committee)
	If such retirement or termination occurs after June 30, 2016, pro rata forfeiture of Target Incentive Amount and award, based on remaining time in Performance Period.  Remaining Target Incentive Amount settles based on actual performance through end of Performance Period.  If such retirement or termination occurs on or before June 30, 2016, then the entire Target Incentive Amount and award is forfeited.








1







	
		
	Voluntary Termination (other than Retirement with Consent of Company), Termination by the Company for Cause  (as determined by the Committee)


	Forfeiture of entire Target Incentive Amount and award.



	Death, Disability
	Pro rata forfeiture of Target Incentive Amount and award, based on time remaining in the Performance Period.  Remaining Target Incentive Amount settles based on actual performance through end of Performance Period.



	Performance-Based Award
	Payout of award amounts attributable to performance measures other than those identified as “Strategic and Individual” on Exhibit 1 are intended to qualify as performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	



	  	




	CORPORATE OFFICE	  	

 1100 Cassatt Road 

Berwyn, PA 19312 U.S.A. 
 May 3,
2016 
 Mr. Frank S. Hermance 
 1100 Cassatt Road 

Berwyn, PA 19312 
 Dear Frank: 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Termination and Change of Control Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2007 (as amended, the
“CIC Agreement”) between AMETEK, Inc. (the “Company”) and you. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this letter shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the CIC Agreement. 

The Company and you have agreed that effective May 5, 2016, you will transition from your role as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
assume the role of Executive Chairman of the Company, reporting to the Board, with such responsibilities, duties and authority as are customary for such role. As Executive Chairman, your base salary will be $1.3 million per annum, and your
target level in the Company’s annual incentive plan will remain at 110%, with a maximum payout of 200% of target, and you will continue to participate in the Company’s long-term incentive plan, which currently consists of a combination of
non-qualified Stock Options and Restricted Shares. The other terms of your employment shall remain the same. 
 Pursuant to this
letter, the Company and you acknowledge and agree that your transition from the position of Chief Executive Officer and assumption of the role of Executive Chairman on the agreed upon date, and the organizational and other changes to your employment
contemplated by this letter, do not in any way constitute or imply a termination by the Company without Cause or constitute grounds for Good Reason under the CIC Agreement or any other agreement between the Company and you.

Except as expressly set forth herein, the CIC Agreement and all of its terms and conditions remain unmodified and in full force and
effect.







 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please indicate so by signing the acceptance and agreement below and
returning this letter to the undersigned. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	AMETEK, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert R. Mandos

	Name:	 	Robert R. Mandos
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer


  

	
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED
 this 3rd day of May
2016:

	
	 /s/ Frank S. Hermance

	Frank S. Hermance
GMAC v. VECCHIONE.

No. 265P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Nina G. Kilbride, for GMAC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of June 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for a Discretionary Review Supreme Court Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
EXHIBIT
23.1









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (File No.: 333-153613) of China Precision Steel, Inc. of our report dated
October 11, 2007 (October 15, 2007 as to the subsequent event disclosed in Note
20), related to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended June
30, 2007 of China Precision Steel, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company"), which
appear in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2009.











Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma


September
25, 2009
EXHIBIT 15 - LETTER RE UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.  10549


RE:      ITI Technologies, Inc. Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Registrations No. 33-89826, No. 333-08943 and No. 333-08945)

We are aware that our report dated April 30, 1997, on our review of interim
financial information of ITI Technologies, Inc. for the period ended March 31,
1997, and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 1997, is incorporated by reference in these registration
statements. Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this
report should not be considered a part of the registration statements prepared
or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 8, 1997
STATE of North Carolina v. Dock WATSON.

No. 533P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, for Watson.

*897Jay L. Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 179 N.C.App. 228, 634 S.E.2d 231.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of October 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."

HUDSON, J., recused.
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2014 of 16 April 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive            measures against Iran         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 397/2014                     

# of 16 April 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran(1), and in particular Article 46(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 23 March 2012, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(2)By its judgment of 12 November 2013 in Case T-552/12(2), the General Court of the European Union annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012(3) insofar as it included North Drilling Company (NDC) in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures,                              as set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(3)North Drilling Company (NDC) should be included again in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures,                              on the basis of a new statement of reasons.

(4)One entity should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex IX to                              Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.

(5)Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

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

Done at Brussels, 16 April 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

D. Kourkoulas                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### I.The entity listed below shall be inserted in the list set out in Part I, Section B (Entities), of Annex IX to Regulation (EU)                        No 267/2012:U.K.

### II.The entity listed below, and the related entry, shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012.U.K.

Safa Nicu a.k.a. ‘Safa Nicu Sepahan’, ‘Safanco Company’, ‘Safa Nicu Afghanistan Company’, ‘Safa Al Noor Company’ and ‘Safa                     Nicu Ltd Company’.                  

1

OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.                           

2

Case T-552/12 *North Drilling Co.* v *Council*, judgment of 12 November 2013, not yet reported.                           

3

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive                              measures against Iran (OJ L 282, 16.10.2012, p. 16).
No. 85-1642.

#### Cunningham *v.*Safeway Trails, Inc., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 ERP Operating Limited Partnership
(ERPOP) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential,
general partner of ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 ERPOP.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David J. Neithercut                                
|David J. Neithercut                                    
|Chief Executive Officer of Registrants General Partner
|May 7, 2009
Opinion issued April 21, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 006 2 7 - CV

——————————— IN RE JEFFERY WAYNE BLACKBURN , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Jeffery Wayne Blackburn , 1 ha s filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging two orders entered by the trial court striking certain counteraffidavits

1 The spelling of relator’s name varies throughout the record. Our style of the case is in accord with the trial court’s order s at issue i n this original proceeding. See Owens v. Handyside , 478 S.W3d 172, 175, n.1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (clarifying style of case); see also Strobel v. Marlow , 341 S.W.3d 470, 471 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2011, no pet.).2

concerning medical expenses

. 2 See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE § 18.001. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am

. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)

. Relator has not demonstrated that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (holding “an appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expe nse or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ”) ; see also In re Flores , No. 01

- 19

- 00484

- CV, 2020 WL 425297, *2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus challenging trial court’s exclusion of counteraffidavits offered pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001)

. Accordingly, w e deny relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 52.8(a) , (d). A ny pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Ke yes, Lloyd , and Hightower.

2 The underlying case is Belinda Lamonto and Linda Bendickson v. Jeffery Wayne Blackburn , C ause No. 201 7

- 80112 , in the 11 3 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Rabeea Sultan Collier presiding.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                       InKine Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of InKine Pharmaceutical
Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert F. Apple, Chief Operating and Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



Date: August 14, 2003                       /s/ Robert F. Apple
                                            -------------------
                                            Robert F. Apple
                                            Chief Operating &
                                            Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-37207, 333-64135, and 333-54440 of CNA Surety Corporation and subsidiaries
on Forms S-8, filed on October 3, 1997, September 24, 1998, and January 26,
2001, respectively, of our report dated February 11, 2002, appearing in and
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CNA Surety
Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 27, 2002
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2014 of 8 August 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 867/2014                     

# of 8 August 2014

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

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 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 Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

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

Done at Brussels, 8 August 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
# C_2023121EN.01001001.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/10

---

Action brought on 10 February 2023 — SunPower v EUIPO —  ZO (*1) (Solar panels (part of -))

(Case T-62/23)

(2023/C 121/13)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: SunPower Corp. (San Jose, California, United States) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
   ZO (*1)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design 2684043-0001

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2022 in Case R 1588/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare the design at issue valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare the design at issue valid;

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision and remit the case to the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in relation to the subject matter of protection; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in relation to the subject matter of protection;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in relation to the individual character of the design at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in relation to the individual character of the design at issue.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---
In re S.S., et al.

No. 272P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Peter Wood, for Father (R.A.).

Janet Ledbetter, Hillsborough, for Mother.

Richard Jester, for Father (W.R.).

Elizabeth Gurnee, Staff Attorney, for Cumberland County DSS.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of February 2008 by Guardian ad Litem for Expedited Ruling:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
# C_2023189EN.01001902.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 March 2023 — Ford Italia SpA v ZP, Stracciari SpA

(Case C-157/23, Ford Italia)

(2023/C 189/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ford Italia SpA

Respondents: ZP, Stracciari SpA

Question referred

Is an interpretation that extends the producer’s liability to the supplier, even where the latter has not physically placed its own name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the item, on the sole ground that the supplier has a name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature that is in whole or in part the same as that of the producer, consistent with Article 3[(1)] of Directive 85/374/EEC? (1) If it is not consistent with that provision, why is that the case?

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).

---