alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


SUMMARY OF


2006 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN AND TARGET PERCENTAGES


Executives,
Officers, Managers, and Key Employees:


Intent: 
To
align long-term interests and to enable executives to develop and maintain a
significant long-term ownership position in the business, as well as to
attract, retain and reward executive officers whose contributions are critical
to long-term success.


Measurement
Criteria:  Awards
are based on achieving financial goals of MarkWest
Hydrocarbon Inc. (“MarkWest Hydrocarbon”) and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. (“MarkWest
Energy”), on achieving other performance goals, and on department/individual
goals and performance, with each criterion weighted based on individual and
department responsibilities to align performance and goals.


Threshold:  The
payout of incentive awards is contingent upon financial performance (income,
cash flow and EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, depletion
and amortization)) being a minimum of 75% of financial plan for each of MarkWest
Energy and MarkWest Hydrocarbon.


Incentive Award Range:  The
incentive award target percentage ranges are set from 30% to 80% of base salary
depending on level and performance achievement, with opportunity for stretch
incentive awards in the ranges of 30% to 80% of base salary if stretch
performance (up to 125% of financial plan) is achieved.


Payout:  MarkWest
Hydrocarbon restricted shares or MarkWest Energy phantom shares, valued at time
of grant.  Share/Units will vest in thirds annually over a three year
period.
#### In the Matter of Linda Ranson, Petitioner, v New York *279City Health and Hospitals Corp, et al., Respondents.

Petition pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered on March 30, 1988, seeking to annul and vacate a determination of respondents, dated January 29, 1985, to terminate petitioner from her position as a provisional emergency medical service specialist, is unanimously denied, respondents’ determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs.

Upon review of this record, we decline to disturb the administrative determination, since there was substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner committed various acts of misconduct. *(See, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176.) Further, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience of the court. *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven WATSON, Appellant.

No. WD 41426.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 7, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 28, 1989.

*681Sean O’Brien, Public Defender, John L. Yohs, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Stewart M. Freilich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and KENNEDY and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a conviction of tampering in the first degree, and from a sentence of two years imprisonment.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11513]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 92F-0219]


Transcommerz AG; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 2B4325), filed by Transcommerz AG, proposing that the 
food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 
<greek-a>-hydro-<greek-oh>-hydroxypoly-(oxytetramethylene), 
diphenylmethane diisocyanate, 1,4-butanediol, ethylenediamine, 1,3-
benzenedimethanamine, diethanolamine, and 1,3,5-tris(4-tert-butyl-3-
hyroxy-2,6-dimethylbenzyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)trione as 
components of a polyurethane elastomer; and dimethyl-polysiloxane, 
<greek-a>-(<greek-r>-nonylphenyl)-<greek-oh>-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), 
and parrafin oil as components of sizing and finishing oils for the 
polyurethane elastomer in food-contact articles used in the processing 
and packaging of food, including meat and poultry.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Zajac, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of July 9, 1992 (57 FR 30496), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 2B4325) had been filed by Transcommerz AG, c/o 
7300 West Camino Real, Boca Raton, FL 33433. The petition proposed to 
amend the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of 
<greek-a>-hydro-<greek-oh>-hydroxypoly-(oxytetramethylene), 
diphenylmethane diisocyanate, 1,4-butanediol, ethylenediamine, 1,3-
benzenedimethanamine, diethanolamine, and 1,3,5-tris(4-tert-butyl-3-
hyroxy-2,6-dimethylbenzyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H,3H,5H)trione as 
components of a polyurethane elastomer; and dimethyl-polysiloxane, 
<greek-a>-(<greek-r>-nonylphenyl)-<greek-oh>-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene), 
and parrafin oil as components of sizing and finishing oils for the 
polyurethane elastomer in food-contact articles used in the processing 
and packaging of food, including meat and poultry. Transcommerz AG has 
now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 
171.7).

    Dated: April 23, 1996.
Eugene C. Coleman,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-11513 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5830 

To prohibit commercial DNA testing services from disclosing the genetic 

information of United States nationals to foreign entities, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. BURCHETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit commercial DNA testing services from disclosing 

the genetic information of United States nationals to 

foreign entities, 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 ‘‘American Genetic Pri5 vacy Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSING GENETIC INFORMA7 TION TO CHINA. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—A commercial DNA testing serv9 ice may not disclose the genetic information of any indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:58 Oct 03, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5830.IH H5830

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5830 IH

1 vidual, or any aggregate of such information, to the Peo2 ple’s Republic of China, or to any entity under the influ3 ence, control, or ownership of the People’s Republic of 

4 China. 

5 (b) ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS6 SION.— 

7 (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRAC8 TICES.—A violation of this section shall be treated 

9 as a violation of a regulation under section 

10 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

11 (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or decep12 tive acts or practices. 

13 (2) POWERS OF COMMISSION.—The Federal 

14 Trade Commission shall enforce this section in the 

15 same manner, by the same means, and with the 

16 same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all 

17 applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 

18 Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incor19 porated into and made part of this section. Any per20 son who violates this section shall be subject to the 

21 penalties and entitled to the privileges and immuni22 ties provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

23 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

24 (1) COMMERCIAL DNA TESTING SERVICE.—The 

25 term ‘‘commercial DNA testing service’’ means any 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5830 IH

1 person that provides genealogical or ancestry-related 

2 information based on an individual’s DNA. 

3 (2) GENETIC INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘ge4 netic information’’ means, with respect to any indi5 vidual, information about such individual’s genetic 

6 tests. 

7 (3) GENETIC TEST.—The term ‘‘genetic test’’ 

8 has the meaning given such term by section 201 of 

9 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 

10 2008 (Public Law 110–233; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5809 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5809

   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to remove a limitation on 
  amounts provided under the clean school bus program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2023

  Ms. Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to remove a limitation on 
  amounts provided under the clean school bus program, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``California Clean School Bus Equity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CLEAN SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM.

    Section 741(b)(7) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
16091(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(7) Deployment and distribution.--The Administrator 
        shall--
                    ``(A) to the maximum extent practicable, achieve 
                nationwide deployment of clean school buses and zero-
                emission school buses through the program under this 
                section; and
                    ``(B) ensure a broad geographic distribution of 
                awards.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Richard Man Fai LEE, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March
31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.




I, Joseph
Tik Tung WONG, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q/A of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March
31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.




May
      28, 2010
            By:/s/ Richard Man Fai LEERichard
      Man Fai LEEChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)May
      28, 2010
            By:/s/ Joseph Tik Tung WONGJoseph
      Tik Tung WONGChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)




This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
Exhibit 2







MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING




This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is made and entered into this 17TH day of October, 2006 (“Effective Date”) by and between Arrow Financial Corporation, a New York corporation (“Arrow”) and John J. Murphy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Arrow (“Executive”) (collectively, the “Parties”).




WHEREAS, Executive is currently serving as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Arrow, and is a director of  Arrow’s principal subsidiary, Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company (the “Bank”); and




WHEREAS, Executive has delivered notice of his intent to resign from his positions with Arrow, effective December 31, 2006 ( the “Resignation Date”) which resignation has been accepted by the Board of Directors of Arrow; and




WHEREAS, Arrow and  Executive desire to reach agreement regarding Executive’s continuing to serve as a part-time consultant for Arrow following the Resignation Date in return for fair compensation for such services.




NOW, THEREFORE, it is the understanding of the Parties as follows:




1.

Consulting Arrangement.  Executive will serve as a consultant for Arrow on financial, accounting and other matters (the “Consulting Services”) for a period of at least three (3) years following the Resignation Date.




2.

Compensation. Executive shall provide services on a monthly basis equal to at least 20% of the normal hours worked by the Executive during the last full year of employment.  The compensation payable will be in such form and terms agreed to by the Executive and the Company.




3.

Bank Directorship.  Executive will continue to serve as a director of the Glens Falls National Bank for the remainder of his term and will be eligible for reelection as a director of the Bank at the next annual meeting.




4.

Location.  Executive shall be free to move his permanent residence outside of the geographical area in which Arrow and the Bank operate.




5.

Definitive Agreement.  This MOU and the terms hereof are subject to the Parties entering into a definitive agreement with regard to the Consulting Services, and the Parties agree to use best efforts to reach such a definitive agreement on or before the Resignation Date.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each person signing below represents and warrants that he or she is fully authorized to execute and deliver this MOU in the capacity set forth beneath his or her signature and the parties hereto have executed this MOU effective as of the Effective Date.




Arrow Financial Corporation

:

Executive:







By:

________________________________




Thomas L. Hoy

John J. Murphy

Chairman, President & CEO 

Executive Vice President & CFO
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 Peer Review Mediation and
Arbitration, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Willis Hale, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
            (1) The Report fully complies with the 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.

/s/Willis Hale
-----------------------------
Willis Hale
Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7510

CHARLES JUSTIN UTZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director of Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-03-181)

Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Justin Utz, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Justin Utz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s

recommendation to dismiss his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000), as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,

683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Utz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julius Stukes, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from six judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), all rendered January 13, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (6 counts; 1 under each indictment), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
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 Gulf United Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
          on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
          and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in
          the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
          to 18
          U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
          Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 1.
                The
                    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                    or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                    and
 
 2.
                The
                    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                    the
                    Company.
 
 
 Date:
          July 12, 2006
 
 
 /s/
          Bryan
          McKay
 
 Bryan
          McKay, President and C.E.O.
 (Principal
          Executive Officer)
#### Dr. John W. CAIN, Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF PODIATRY MEDICINE, Respondent.

No. WD 47935.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 25, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 1, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied April 26, 1994.

Dr. John W. Cain, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barry Gilbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from trial court’s dismissal of petition alleging that Missouri State Board of Podiatry Medicine violated the provisions of sections 610.010 to 610.026, RSMo Supp.1992, relatinS to °Pen meetings and records' Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 On September 28, 2006, the board of directors of Central
European Distribution Corporation (the “Company”) approved an increase in the annual fee for serving as a member of the board of directors from $6,000 per year to $10,000 per year, effective October 1, 2006. The complete compensation
package for members of the board of directors is now as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	Each director is entitled to receive an annual fee of $10,000 for serving as a member of board of directors. The chairmen of the audit committee and the compensation committee are
each entitled to receive an additional annual fee of $4,000. The chairman of the nominating committee is not entitled to receive any additional fee. In addition to the director fee, the chairman of the board of directors is entitled to receive an
annual fee of $12,000. 

  

	 	•	 	Pursuant to the Company’s 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Option Plan”), a director on the date of his or her initial election to the board of directors is granted an
option to purchase 11,812 shares of common stock. Thereafter, the director is granted an option to purchase 5,062 shares of common stock annually. In addition, the chairmen of the audit committee and the compensation committee each receives an
annual grant of an option to purchase 10,125 shares of common stock under the Option Plan, while the chairman of the nominating committee does not receive any additional option grant. In addition, the members of the compensation committee each
receive an annual grant of an option to purchase 1,687 shares of common stock under the Option Plan, and the members of the audit committee each receive an annual grant of an option to purchase 4,500 shares of common stock under the Option Plan. The
members of the nominating committee do not receive any additional option grants. In addition to the options granted to directors, the chairman of the board of directors receives an additional annual grant of an option to purchase 15,187 shares of
common stock under the Option Plan. 

  

	 	•	 	The Company reimburses directors for out-of-pocket travel expenditures relating to their service on the board of directors. 

  

 37