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



Exhibit 10.4
Apache Corporation
Non-Employee Directors’ Restricted Stock Units Program Specifications



Effective May 12, 2016


		
	Share Plan:
	2016 Omnibus Compensation Plan (the “2016 Plan”), the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.




		
	Administration:
	This Program is administered by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.




		
	Eligible Participants:
	Members of the Company’s Board of Directors, as of the applicable grant date, who are neither officers nor employees of the Company.




		
	Objective:
	The program is designed to be administered in conjunction with the provisions of the current Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan as a means to recognize the non-employee directors for services rendered through the awarding of equity compensation.




Quarterly
		
	Grant Dates:
	The last day of each calendar quarter.




Quarterly Grant to
Non-Employee
		
	Directors*:
	RSUs the number of which is calculated by dividing $50,000  by the Fair Market Value (as defined in the 2016 Plan) of a share of Apache Common Stock on the grant date. If applicable, the grant shall be prorated for a non-employee director’s service during the calendar quarter.  If the calculated number of RSUs includes a fraction, the number shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number.




Quarterly Grant to
Non-Executive
		
	Chairman*:
	RSUs the number of which is calculated by dividing $25,000  by the Fair Market Value (as defined in the 2016 Plan) of a share of Apache Common Stock on the grant date. If applicable, the grant shall be prorated for the non-employee, non-executive chairman’s service during the calendar quarter.  If the calculated number of RSUs includes a fraction, the number shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number.




		
	Program Term:
	Until termination of the 2016 Plan




		
	Vesting:
	100% as of grant date, with 100% automatic, mandatory deferral as described below.




		
	Automatic Deferral
	Upon vesting, the RSUs will be deferred into the Outside Directors’ Deferral Program and the RSUs and the associated dividend amounts (converted to shares of the Company’s common stock) will be distributed in a lump sum at the times specified in the Outside Directors’ Deferral Program. 






*These grants do not result in any change to the cash retainers for board, non-executive chairman, and committee service paid under the provisions of the Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan.
# CE2004070EN.01009201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/92

---

(2004/C 70 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/03

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Insignia for European Union military forces

Subject:

Recent press reports suggest that military forces to be sent to Congo will wear identification insignia based upon a map of the European Union.

Reports state that this insignia does not include representation of any part of Ireland.

Would the Council indicate if such reports are accurate and if so indicate the reasons for this omission?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

(5 December 2003)

The Council hereby informs the Honourable Member that the only official insignia worn by personnel engaged in the Artemis operation is an armband in the European colours (yellow stars on a blue ground) bearing the name of the operation (Artemis); the armband does not feature the map of Europe.

---
# CE2004078EN.01001002.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/10

---

(2004/C 78 E/0011)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3803/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject:   Catalan television broadcast on fraud against the ESF in Spain

Subject:

On Sunday, 1 December 2002 at 9.30 p.m., the Catalan television channel TV3 (which belongs to the regional government of Catalonia) broadcast a programme (Catalan title: '30 minuts') on the subject of fraud in Spain involving public funds intended for such areas as professional training and retraining programmes.

This broadcast used hidden cameras to film conversations involving business persons, trade unionists, teachers, workers and fictitious ‘trainees’, discussing various types of fraud. The images were located mostly, but not exclusively, in the Madrid and Catalonia regions of Spain.

The conversations made express mention of European Social Fund programmes, and some of the speakers suggested means of submitting proposals with a view to obtaining irregular benefits, stating that the controls in place could be easily circumvented. Reference was even made to OLAF's vulnerability in this area.

Is the Commission aware of this television broadcast?

Has it verified the allegations made?

Has it taken, or does it intend to take, any action?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

(28 January 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member which was broadcast by the Catalan television channel TV3 on fraud in the use of European Social Fund (ESF) assistance in Spain.

The Commission is therefore going to ask the Spanish authorities (UAFSE) for their comments and for any other information which will help to properly evaluate the content of this programme.

Once this information has been received, the Commission will examine the potential impact on the ESF operational programmes.

---
Exhibit No. 11.  Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings for the nine
                 and three months ended September 30, 1997 and 1996 (in
                 thousands except per share data).


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Nine Months Ended        Three Months Ended
                                                     September 30,             September 30,
                                                --------------------       -------------------
                                                  1997         1996          1997        1996
                                                -------      -------       -------     -------
<S> <C>
Net income                                      $ 1,357       $  348       $  511      $ (420)
                                                =======       ======       ======      ======

Weighted average shares outstanding               3,021        3,109        3,022       3,052

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
  effect of stock options                            95           24          111          37
                                                -------       ------       ------      ------

Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalents outstanding                     3,116        3,133        3,133       3,089
                                                =======       ======       ======      ======

Primary earnings (loss) per share               $  0.43       $ 0.11       $ 0.16      $(0.13)
                                                =======       ======       ======      ======

Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalents outstanding                     3,116        3,133        3,133       3,089

Additional dilutive shares using the end
  of period market value versus the
  average market value when applying
  the treasury stock method(1)                      N/A          N/A          N/A         N/A
                                                    ---          ---          ---         ---

Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalents outstanding for fully
  diluted computation                             3,116        3,133        3,133       3,089
                                                =======       ======       ======      ======

Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share         $  0.43       $ 0.11       $ 0.16      $(0.13)
                                                =======       ======       ======      ======
</TABLE>
 ------------------------------------
 (1) Fully dilutive earnings per share are not anti-dilutive or did not result
     in dilution of three percent or  more; therefore they are not separately
     presented in the consolidated statements of operations.
STATE v. FREEMAN.

No. COA08-445.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Columbus (06CRS2531, 04CRS53256).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
In the Matter of C.M.W.

No. 239P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Richard Croutharmel, Apex, for Juvenile.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of May 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Tashaun BROWN.

No. 537P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Tashaun Brown, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Philip E. Berger, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th day of December 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Rockingham County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT (15)

Enserch Exploration, Inc:



We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
condensed consolidated financial information of Enserch Exploration,  Inc.
and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 1996 and 1995, as
indicated in our report dated October 25, 1996; because we did not perform
an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-57715 and
No. 33-60587 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 12, 1996
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER Michael J. Talbot, C.J. People v Perkins ; People v Williams ; People v Hyall Presiding Jud g e Docket Nos. 323454; 323876; 325741 All Court of Appeals Judges LC Nos. 13-032653-FC; 13-033526-FC; 13 - 032654 - FC The Co urt orders that a specia l pan e l s h all b e convened purs u ant to MCR 7 . 2 1 5(1) to resolve the conflict between this case and People v Skinner, _ Mich App _; _ N W2d

_ (2016) (Docket No. 3 178 92). The Co urt furt her orders that part IV , section C, of the opinion in this case, released on January 19, 2016, i s vacated in it s en tirety. MCR 7.215(1)(5). Appellant Hyatt may fi le a supp l emental brief with in 21 days of the C lerk 's certification of this o rder. Appellee may fil e a supp le mental brief with in 21 days of the se rvice of appellant's brief.

A true co py entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr.. C hi ef Cle rk, o n 

## FEB 1 2 

## 2016 Dare

# ~~J**' ~**
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18071]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Extreme 
Endeavors and Consulting

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with 37 CFR 404 et seq., the Department of the 
Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Extreme Endeavors 
and Consulting, a corporation having its principal place of business at 
P.O. Box 2093, Philippi, WV 26416, exclusive license to practice in the 
United States, the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent 
No. 5,515,865 issued May 14, 1996 entitled, ``Sudden Infant Death 
Syndrome (SIDS) Monitor and Simulator,'' U.S. Patent No. 5,684,460 
issued in November 4, 1997 entitled ``Motion and Sound Monitor 
Simulator,''; and U.S. Patent No. 5,853,005 issued in December 29, 1998 
entitled ``Acoustic Monitoring System,''.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than 15 days from the date of this notice.

ADDRESSES: Send written objections to Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army 
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, 
ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-DP-T/Bldg. 454, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Rausa, telephone (410) 278-
5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18071 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8170-08-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 58 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 58

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 
       the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and 
                             entertainment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 
       the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and 
                             entertainment.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and entertainment expenses 
allowed as deduction) is amended by striking ``50 percent'' and 
inserting ``the applicable percentage''.
    (b) Applicable Percentage.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
following:
            ``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1), the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage 
        determined under the following table:

``For taxable years beginning                            The applicable
    in calendar year--                                  percentage is--
    2007..........................................                  75 
    2008 or thereafter............................               80.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``Only 50 
Percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
McKOY v. BEASLEY.

No. COA08-369.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Bladen (07CVS259).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. James W. GASTON.

No. 478P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of October *9082008 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief Pursuant to Post Conviction Appeal Challenging Predicate Convictions that are Unconstitutional Pursuant to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
William Lawson BROWN, III v. Mark P. ELLIS.

No. 389PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

K. Edward Greene, Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, Lee M. Cecil, High Point, for Brown.

T. Keith Black, William F. Patterson, Jr., Greensboro, for Ellis.

Prior report: 184 N.C.App. 547, 646 S.E.2d 408.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 7th day of August 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 7th day of August 2007 by Plaintiff 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 7th day of August 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 11th day of December 2008."

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Plaintiff shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
# C_2023104EN.01003902.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/39

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Tradias v EUIPO — Triodos Bank (Tradias)

(Case T-32/23)

(2023/C 104/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tradias GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: P. Bär, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triodos Bank NV (Zeist, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for a European Union word mark Tradias — Application for registration No 18 262 673

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2022 in Case R 734/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, insofar as it upheld the opposition for ‘Finance Services’ in class 36 and reject the opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, insofar as it upheld the opposition for ‘Finance Services’ in class 36 and reject the opposition in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, Triodos Bank NV to pay the costs incurred before the Court and in the proceedings before EUIPO’s Board of Appeals. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, Triodos Bank NV to pay the costs incurred before the Court and in the proceedings before EUIPO’s Board of Appeals.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Douglas Lee HUSKETH, Jr. v. Herb JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution.

No. 566P01-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Douglas Lee Husketh, Jr., Pro Se.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 14th day of August 2008 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Anson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Bary G. Bailey, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
     1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ValeantPharmaceuticals International;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ BARY G. BAILEY   **Bary G. Bailey**   **Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer**