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










Exhibit 10.10
Directors Equity Compensation Program




Initial and annual grants will be made to outside directors primarily under the Power Integrations, Inc. 2016 Incentive Award Plan (the “2016 Plan”) as follows (the “Directors Equity Compensation Program”):


		
	1.
	Each Non-Employee Director shall be a participant in the Directors Equity Compensation Program;


		
	2.
	On the first trading day of July in each year (the “Regular Grant Date”):




		
	•
	Each outside director will receive a grant of a restricted stock unit award with an aggregate value of $120,000 (the “Award”).


		
	•
	The number of shares subject to such Award would be calculated as the dollar value of such Award divided by the closing trading price of the Company's common stock on such grant date


		
	•
	Each such Award would vest in full effective immediately prior to the commencement of the Company's first annual meeting of stockholders in the year following the year of the grant date, provided that the recipient is still providing services to the Company as a director as of such time, and, provided, further, that 100% of the shares subject to such Award would be deemed fully vested upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, as such term is defined in the Company's 2016 Plan.




		
	3.
	A new eligible director would receive under the 2016 Plan an Award, which shall be equal to the pro rated portion of the Company's annual Awards based on the time between the date the new director is appointed to the Board and the first trading day of Nasdaq in the month of July following such director's appointment.


		
	4.
	The Directors Equity Compensation Program shall remain in effect at the discretion of the Board or the Compensation Committee.
<Page>

Exhibit 99.1

March 27, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to Protection One, Inc. that with respect to
Arthur Andersen LLP's audit of the consolidated financial statements for
Protection One, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 the audit
was subject to Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. Accounting
and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability of
national office consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

                                  PROTECTION ONE, INC.

                                  By: /s/ Darius G. Nevin
                                      -------------------
                                      Darius G. Nevin
                                      Executive Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 75

To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House of

Representatives at lobbyist expense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. GOSS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on House Oversight

A BILL

To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of

the House of Representatives at lobbyist expense.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF TRAVEL BY MEMBERS, OFFI4 CERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE OF

5 REPRESENTATIVES AT LOBBYIST EXPENSE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—A Member, officer, or employee

7 of the House of Representatives may not perform any

8 travel at the expense of a person who is required to reg9 ister under section 308 of the Federal Regulation of Lob10 bying Act (2 U.S.C. 267).
2

•HR 75 IH

1 (b) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term

2 ‘‘Member of the House of Representatives’’ means a Rep3 resentative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner

4 to, the Congress.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 731

To require the Secretary of the Army to convey certain real property at

Fort Ord, California, to the City of Seaside, California, in order to

foster the economic development of the City, which has been adversely

impacted by the closure of Fort Ord.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 30, 1995

Mr. FARR (for himself, Mr. DELLUMS, and Mr. HORN) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on National Security

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Army to convey certain

real property at Fort Ord, California, to the City of

Seaside, California, in order to foster the economic development of the City, which has been adversely impacted

by the closure of Fort Ord.

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

3 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.

4 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the

5 Army shall convey to the City of Seaside, California (in

6 this section referred to as the ‘‘City’’), all right, title, and

7 interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
2

•HR 731 IH

1 property (including improvements thereon) consisting of

2 approximately 477 acres located in Monterey County,

3 California, and comprising a portion of the former Fort

4 Ord Military Complex. The real property to be conveyed

5 to the City includes the two Fort Ord Golf Courses, Black

6 Horse and Bayonet, and the Hayes Housing Facilities.

7 (b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the con8 veyance of the real property and improvements under sub9 section (a), the City shall pay to the United States an

10 amount equal to the fair market value of the property to

11 be conveyed, as determined by the Secretary under such

12 terms and conditions as are determined to be fair and eq13 uitable to both parties.

14 (c) USE AND DEPOSIT OF PROCEEDS.—(1) From the

15 funds paid by the City under subsection (b), the Secretary

16 shall deposit in the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Fund

17 Account of the Department of the Army an amount equal

18 to the portion of such funds corresponding to the fair mar19 ket value of the two Fort Ord Golf Courses conveyed

20 under subsection (a), as established under subsection (b).

21 (2) The Secretary shall deposit the balance of the

22 funds paid by the City under subsection (b), after deduct23 ing the amount deposited under paragraph (1), in the De24 partment of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.
3

•HR 731 IH

1 (d) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The exact acreage

2 and legal description of the real property (including im3 provements thereon) to be conveyed under subsection (a)

4 shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Sec5 retary and the City. The cost of the survey shall be borne

6 by the City.

7 (e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The

8 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi9 tions in connection with the conveyance under this section

10 as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the inter11 ests of the United States.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Santo Latrona, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered on the 19th day of November, 1907, convicting the defendant of manslaughter, and also from an ' order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

This case presented only a question of fact for the jury, and the jury having decided it adversely to the defendant, there is no reason for .disturbing their conclusion. The judgment should be affirmed. Present — Ingraham, McLaughlin, Laughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ. Judgment and order affirmed.
#### Albert A. Vaughn, Respondent, v. The Glens Falls Portland Cement Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PATRICIA KOSTYSHYN,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

NEW CASTLE COUNTY,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 312, 2023

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. N22J-02872

§ 

§

§

Submitted: November 6, 2023

Decided: November 7, 2023

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 

it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Patricia Kostyshyn, filed this appeal from a monition 

action in the Superior Court. On August 30, 2023 and September 26, 2023, the 

Clerk’s office sent letters advising Kostyshyn to pay the filing fee or file a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis, first by September 14, 2023 and then by October 10, 

2023. The Clerk’s Office warned Kostyshyn that if she failed to do so a notice to 

show cause would issue. The Clerk’s office sent the letters to the addresses provided 

by Kostyshyn and her brother, Peter Kostyshyn, who had filed the same documents. 
2

(2) On September 27, 2023, the Deputy Prothonotary submitted a letter 

stating that Kostyshyn had not paid the Superior Court’s appeal preparation fee. The 

Clerk’s office sent Kostyshyn a letter withdrawing the record deadline and directing 

her to pay the Superior Court appeal preparation fee by October 10, 2023, or a notice 

to show cause would issue. Kostyshyn did not pay this Court’s filing fee or the 

Superior Court’s appeal preparation fee. She also failed to file a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. 

(3) On October 11, 2023 and October 12, 2023, the Clerk’s office issued 

notices, by certified mail, directing Kostyshyn to show cause why this appeal should 

not be dismissed for her failure to pay this Court’s filing fee and the Superior Court’s

appeal preparation fee. Postal records show that the October 11, 2023 notice to show 

cause was delivered on October 12, 2023 and the October 12, 2023 notice to show 

cause was returned with the notation “return to sender, vacant, unable to forward.” 

On October 23, 2023, the Clerk’s office reissued the notices to show cause by first 

class mail. The Court’s correspondence and notices to show cause were sent to the 

addresses that the Kostyshyns provided, and continue to provide, to this Court.

(4) On October 25, 2023, November 3, 2023, and November 6, 2023, 

Kostyshyn filed documents that are deemed to be her response to the notice to show 

cause. The documents do not address her failure to pay this Court’s filing fee or the 
3

Superior Court’s appeal preparation fee. In light of Kostyshyn’s failure to pay those

fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
Exhibit
10.35    2nd
Half 2007 Executive Bonus Program  Introduction  With the recent reorganization and focus on
our 3 lines of business, we have modified our bonus plans for the 2nd
half of 2007 to align better with each business and provide the increased
opportunity for a bonus payout in 2007.  Goals of the Plan  The goals of the 2007 H2 revised Management
Bonus Program are:  ·To recognize
executive contributions in the achievement of organizational financial targets
and the achievement of  established
Success Factors  Plan Design  For the second half bonus plan, we will measure our achievements
quarterly by organization.  For Q3, the Executive plan is based on revised second half 2007
Business Unit financial goals or, for the Corporate executives, Company
Financial Goals. For Q4, the Executive plan is based on Q4 financial metrics by
Business Unit AND 2H Success Factors for each unit.  Q3 Financial Metrics by Business UnitBusiness Unit
  
  Metric
  
  GoalCommunications Platforms
  
  Contribution
  Margin Target
  
  $
  5.5MMobile Applications
  
  Contribution
  Margin Target
  
  $
  (1.8M
  )Network Infrastructure
  
  Contribution
  Margin Target
  
  $
  (400
  )   ***
NMS Communications Confidential ***


Q4 Financial & Success Metrics by Business UnitBusiness Unit
  
  Financial Metric
  
  Success Factor MetricCommunications
  Platforms
  
  Contribution Margin Target
  
  $
  5.2M
  
  6 Major New Design WinsMobile Applications
  
  Contribution Margin Target
  
  $
  (2.1M
  )
  Deliver & launch
  Virgin Mobile
  Grow Subscribers  passed to
  220M active to 10M
  Book additional managed
  service dealsCorporate Functions
  
  Company Financials
  
  
  
  Oprationalize Revenue
  Share
  & Revenue Recog
  Employee Ease of Use
  Operational Execution
  Rebrand Public Website  Plan Funding and Payouts  The plan is funded to pay out up to 25% of
the 2007 Bonus Target.  2nd half 07 bonus payments are
payable at the end of each quarter once company financials have been released.  One-third of the H2 payout will be available
after the end of Q3 while the remaining two-thirds will be available at the end
of Q4 based upon results.   ***
NMS Communications Confidential ***
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7694

DWAYNE E. SYDNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN R. KUPLINSKI, Jail Administrator; KAVEH OFOGH, Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00697)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne E. Sydnor, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne E. Sydnor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his civil rights complaint. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not

timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

August 3, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on November 4,

2007.* Because Sydnor failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We deny Sydnor’s motion for seizure of medical

records. 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
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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert O. Bond, as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/   ROBERT O. BOND


Robert O. Bond


President and Chief Operating Officer





November 5, 2009








This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company 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 this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6611
CORNELIUS STRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD LANHAM, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-3370-JFM) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corne lius Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bruce Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Strong v. Robinson , No. CA-95-3370-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 29, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XJ67


Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Salmon 
Advisory Subpanel (SAS) will hold a work session by telephone 
conference to develop recommendations for the September 2008 Council 
meeting.

DATES: The telephone conference will be held Friday, September 5, 2008, 
from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: A public listening station will be available at the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, Small Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador 
Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE 
Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chuck Tracy, Salmon Management 
Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council: (503) 820-2280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the work session is to review 
information in the Council's September 2008 meeting briefing book 
related to salmon management, and to develop comments and 
recommendations for consideration at the September 2008 Council 
meeting.
    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda 
may come before the SAS for discussion, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal SAS action during this meeting. SAS action will be 
restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any 
issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency 
action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified 
of the SAS's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people 
with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-
2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 8, 2008.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-18750 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### Daniel C. Garvey, Appellant, v. Mary Garvey, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concurred.
The Unknown Heirs of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 17, 2015

No. 04-14-00667-CV

Ramiro and Edna RAMOS, and Federico Salazar, Jr.,

Appellants

v.

The Unknown Heirs of Tomasa GONZALEZ and Narciso Gonzalez,

Appellees

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-09-559

Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 26, 2015, this court issued an order directing Ms. Gay Richey to appear 

before this court on March 19, 2015, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of 

court of failing to file the reporter’s record in this appeal. On March 13, 2015, this court 

received notice that Ms. Richey had been served with notice of the order by the Sheriff of Starr 

County, Texas. 

On March 16, 2015, this court received an email correspondence from Ms. Richey 

explaining her actions with regard to the reporter’s record. In the email correspondence, Ms. 

Richey represents to this court that she has completed the record; however, she has not been paid 

the remaining balance due for the record. Ms. Richey states that she informed the attorneys that 

payment was due “about a week ago” and the record will be filed upon receipt of payment.

It is therefore ORDERED that this court’s order of February 26, 2015 is WITHDRAWN, 

and the hearing scheduled for March 19, 2015 is CANCELLED. It is FURTHER ORDERED 

that appellant’s attorney provide this court with written proof by March 23, 2015, that the 

remaining balance due for the record has been paid. Immediately upon receipt of payment, 

Ms. Richey is ORDERED to electronically file the reporter’s record in this appeal.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court