alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4


 


MAGNETEK, INC.


NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION
AGREEMENT


 


                FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, MAGNETEK, INC., a Delaware corporation, hereby irrevocably
grants to the Optionee named below the non-qualified stock option (the “Option”)
to purchase any part or all of the specified number of shares of its $0.01 par
value Common Stock upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
this Agreement, at the specified purchase price per share without commission or
other charge.  The Option is granted
pursuant to the plan specified below (the “Plan”) and the Standard Terms and
Conditions promulgated under such Plan. 
The terms of the Plan and such Standard Terms and Conditions are hereby
incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement.  The Committee, as defined in the Plan,  shall have the power to interpret this
Agreement.


 


	
  The
  Plan:

  	
  2004
  Stock Incentive Plan of MagneTek, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name
  of Optionee:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Social
  Security Number:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number
  of Shares covered by Option (subject to lapse

  	
   

  
	
  provisions
  and other limitations on exercisability in

  	
   

  
	
  accordance
  with the terms of the Plan):

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Purchase
  Price Per Share:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Minimum
  Number of Shares Per Partial Exercise:

  	
  100
  Shares

  



 


The
Option shall become exercisable in installments in accordance with the following
vesting schedule:


 


                Until               ,
the Option shall not be exercisable to any degree.  Thereafter, the Option shall vest


        %
of the first anniversary of the Grant Date, [and]            %
on the second anniversary of the Grant Date 
[, and            %
on the third anniversary of this grant].


 


 


Date
of this Agreement (Grant Date):


 


 


	
  MAGNETEK,
  INC.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Optionee
  Signature

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Address
  (please print):

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              12,492 
<SECURITIES>                                       349,525 
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   367,600 
<PP&E>                                                   0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     367,600 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               38,829 
<BONDS>                                                  0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               11,200 
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            23,241 
<OTHER-SE>                                         333,159 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       367,600 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100,532 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,196  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (87,483)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       (87,483)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)
                                                   

</TABLE>
2020 Expert and Consultant Daily Wages

Based on the OPM Salary Table 2020-GS

Effective January 5, 2020

The following is a table of compensation rates for Experts and Consultants identifying per diem rates based on the first and the tenth 

step of GS-13, GS-14, and GS-15. As in the past, we suggest the use of a rate that equates to the first step of the appropriate grade. 

With supporting documentation, a higher rate may be justified to match the private sector salary of the appointee.

 Daily Daily

Per Diem Salary Scale Minimum Maximum

GS-13 range $78,681 - $102,288 $301.60 $392.08

GS-14 range $92,977 - $120,868 $356.40 $463.28

GS-15 range $109,366 - $142,180 $419.20 $545.04

NOTE: The process of increasing the pay of an Expert or Consultant is not automatic and requires the submission of a Request for 

Personnel Action, SF-52.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPX INTERNATIONAL INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                       805
<INVENTORY>                                     25,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,037
<PP&E>                                          94,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,741
<BONDS>                                         20,527
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,686
<SALES>                                        110,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,173
<CGS>                                           78,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,001
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Simulation Results Graphs and 

Cluster Analyses for:

“The Influence of Realism on 

Congestion in Network Simulations”

NIST Technical Note

C. Dabrowski & K. Mills

2015
Table of Contents

• Graphs for Congestion Spread (χ) – slides 3-37

• Graphs for Network Connectivity (α) – slides 38-72

• Graphs for Packet Delivery Effectiveness (π) – slides 73-107

• Graphs for Packet Delivery Efficiency (δ) – slides 108-142

• Clustering for Each Response (χ, α, π and δ) – slides 143-147
Graphs for Congestion Spread (χ)

(Dabrowski & Mills NIST)


































Graphs for Network Connectivity (α)

(Dabrowski & Mills NIST)


































Graphs for Packet Delivery Effectiveness (π)

(Dabrowski & Mills NIST)


































Graphs for Packet Delivery Efficiency (δ)

(Dabrowski & Mills NIST)


































Clustering for Each Response (χ, α, π and δ)

(Dabrowski & Mills NIST)
Hierarchical Clustering 2500 Series GCC Isolated Nodes (χ)
Hierarchical Clustering 2500 Series GCC Reachable Nodes (α)
Hierarchical Clustering 2500 Series Proportion of Packets Delivered (π)
Hierarchical Clustering 2500 Series Scaled Packet Delays (δ)
<PAGE>   1
 
   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02
    
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-3 of our report dated
January 23, 1998 included in Crescent Real Estate Equities Company's Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997, and of our reports dated December 4, 1997
on Energy Centre, January 16, 1998 on Post Oak Central, and January 16, 1998 on
Washington Harbour included in Crescent Real Estate Equities Company's Forms
8-K and to all references to our Firm included in this Registration Statement.
 
                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
June 11, 1998
United States

Department of

Commerce

Technology

Administration

National

Institute of

Standards and

Technology

SPECIFICATIONS, TOLERANCES,

AND OTHER TECHNICAL

REQUIREMENTS FOR WEIGHING

AND MEASURING DEVICES

as adopted by

the 92nd

National

Conference on

Weights and

Measures 2007

44

2008

NIST Handbook
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                      |  |        |  |                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2006 |  | By:    |  | /s/    PAUL E. BERGER,
M.D.                                        
|                      |  | Name:  |  | Paul E. Berger, M.D.                                               
|                      |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### J. H. McMullin *v.*J. G. Dodge.

Trade-marks and Trade-names — Unfair Competition.

Where D. used the trade-mark “Kentucky Bells” on bells manufactured by him, the use of tbe words “Kentucky Stock Bells” on bells manufactured by M. constitutes unfair competition, and M. may ■be enjoined.

Trade-marks and Trade-names — Pleading.

Where plaintiff sued to- enjoin defendant from committing apprehended injury by unfair competition, it is not necessary to allege and prove actual injury as a prerequisite to recovery.

*690APPEAL FR'OM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 3, 1873.

*Fox, for*appellant..

*Jamies Harrison, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The name adopted by Dodge for the bell manufactured by him, which by -long and continuous use he became entitled to as a trade-mark, was that of “Kentucky Bell.” He did not use the word “Kentucky” to- indicate the place at, or the state within which his bells were manufactured, but appropriated the words “Kentucky Bell” as the name of his work and made the combination his trademark, by attaching it to the goods he manufactured.

Appellant could have shown upon the bells manufactured by him, that they were manufactured in the state of Kentucky without using the name of the state so as to create the impression upon the minds of ordinary observers that they were the “Kentucky Bells,” manufactured by Dodge. • The fact that he inserted between the words “Kentucky” and “Bell” the word “Stock” amounts to nothing. His bells are similar in size, shape, and color to those manufactured by Dodge. His label is printed upon paper very nearly the same color with that used by appellee. The word “Stock” conveys no information to the purchaser of the bells, as they show for themselves that they are stock bells.

The evidence in this case raises the presumption that the label used by Offett was intended to be an imitation of the trade mark of Dodge, and that it was well calculated to deceive the public, and to injure his business. As this is not an action for damages it was not necessary to allege or prove actual injury. It was for the purpose of being protected against the apprehended injury that Dodge prayed for an injunction. The judgment of the chancellor is not more comprehensive than it should have been.

Judgment *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2














Certification of Principal Accounting
Officer Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








In
connection with theamendedannual
report on Form 10-K/A of Rotoblock Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard
Di Stefano, Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 Registrant.








Date:
March 24,
2010 ROTOBLOCK
CORPORATION





/s/ 
Richard Di Stefano


By:
Richard Di Stefano, Chief Financial Officer/Principal Accounting Officer
BLAND UI: 

User-Friendly Neutron 

Diffraction Analysis

Nathan Super

William Ratcliff (NCNR)

Joseph Lesniewski

Dylan Quintana

Steven Disseler (NCNR)

Paul Kienzle (NCNR)

BraggDiffraction
• Unit Cell

• Translational, 

Rotational Symmetry
UNIT 

CELL

Gauss-Newton Algorithm
•Reitveld Refinement

•Minimizes residuals

•Gets stuck in local minima



BLAND: 

Bayesian Library for 

Analysis of

Neutron Diffraction

Combines BUMPS with 

CrysFML (Fortran 

crystallography library)
Automated Global Fitting

Decrease need for intuition

 Reliability

 Adaptability

 Web interface – My job
• ReactJS

• Django

• CrysFML
React View

Redux Store Django Server
• ReactJS

• Django

• CrysFML

• No more need to write own scripts to 

use BLAND







Model selection

Instrument Control Integration
• NSF 

• NIST

• NCNR

• CHRNS

• William Ratcliff

• Paul Kienzle

• Steve Disseler

• Julie Borchers

• Joe Dura

• Yamali Hernandez
September 2003 

Definition of Premium Diesel Fuel Gets an Overhaul 

By: Kathy Dresser 

Thanks to the tremendous work done by the Premium Diesel Work Group, the L&R 

Committee overhauled the definition of premium diesel fuel, which was adopted by the 

NCWM at this year’s conference. 

The former cafeteria-style approach to labeling premium diesel fuel had been an issue for 

many jurisdictions for a number of years. Previously, refiners only had to meet any two 

of the five requirements to label their products as “premium”. Potentially, this resulted in 

two very dissimilar products bearing the same name. 

The new definition for premium diesel sets forth four requirements that all diesel fuels 

must meet in order to be labeled as premium. It eliminates the “energy content” and 

highly controversial “fuel injector cleanliness” requirements, while adding “lubricity” as 

a factor. An added bonus to the single definition is that it eliminates the need for 

extensive labeling of properties. To promote uniformity, the ASTM Standard Test 

Methods for thermal stability and lubricity have been incorporated. 

The L&R Committee wishes to recognize and thank the members of the Premium Diesel 

Work Group for their contributions: R. Jennings, Tennessee; R. Leisenring, Jr, Chevron 

Texaco; C. Cooney, Oregon; L. Cunningham, Ethyl Corporation; D. Daniels, OctelStarreon; C. Yarnold, ONDEO Nalco; D. Harvey, Citgo Petroleum; R. Hayes, Missouri; 

M. Herman, Herman & Associates; G. Mittermaier, Petroleum Marketers; M. Nikanjam, 

Chevron Products Co.; J. Peeples, AAE Technologies, Inc; D. Smith, North Carolina; and 

N. Strete, Lubrizol Corp. 

For further information, contact Kathy Dresser at 301-975-3289 or by email at 

kathryn.dresser@nist.gov.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 18, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00482

- CV

Jeffrey D. Smith, Appellant

v.

Jason Wall, D.D.S, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUS TICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD
REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on July 17, 2013

, into which is

merged it s order of June 17, 2013 . Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the

Court holds that there was reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court

reverses the district court’s judgment and remands the case to the dis trict court for further

proceedings

. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the

court below.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revised Amount of 
the Average Cost of a Health Insurance Policy

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is 
publishing an updated monetary amount of the average cost of a health 
insurance policy as it relates to the National Vaccine Injury 
Compensation Program (VICP).
    Section 100.2 of the VICP's implementing regulation (42 CFR Part 
100) states that the revised amounts of an average cost of a health 
insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary, are to be published 
periodically in a notice in the Federal Register and filed with the 
United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court). This figure is 
calculated using the most recent Medical Expenditure Panel Survey--
Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) data available as the baseline for the 
average monthly cost of a health insurance policy. This baseline is 
adjusted by the annual percentage increase/decrease obtained from the 
most recent annual Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and 
Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) Employer Health Benefits survey or other 
authoritative source that may be more accurate or appropriate.
    In 2014, MEPS-IC, available at www.meps.ahrq.gov, published the 
annual 2013 average total single premium per enrolled employee at 
private-sector establishments that provide health insurance. The figure 
published was $5,571. This figure is divided by 12-months to determine 
the cost per month of $464.25. The $464.25 shall be increased or 
decreased by the percentage change reported by the most recent KFF/
HRET, available at www.kff.org. The percentage increase from 2013 to 
2014 was published at 2 percent. By adding this percentage increase, 
the calculated average monthly cost of a health insurance policy is 
$473.54 for 2014.
    Therefore, the Secretary announces that the revised average cost of 
a health insurance policy under the VICP is $473.54 per month. In 
accordance with Sec.  100.2, the revised amount was effective upon its 
delivery by the Secretary to the Court. Such notice was delivered to 
the Court on November 13, 2014.

    Dated: November 13, 2014.
Mary K. Wakefield,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-27432 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,334
<PP&E>                                       1,078,464
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,457,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,861
<BONDS>                                        693,647
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           873
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,221,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,457,691
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,270
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,285)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                145,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
Article Ref: F-043 

Weights and Measures Connection, Vol. 7, Issue 2 Page 1

3/24/2016

NIST Handbook 133 Conversion Tables Incorporated 

into FTC’s Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

The Federal Trade Commission issued final amendments to its rules and regulations promulgated under 

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), which included the incorporation of comprehensive metric 

conversion tables in NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” The 

amendments also modernize the place of-business listing requirement, clarify guidance

on the use of exponents with customary inch/pound measurements, and eliminate outdated regulations 

on retail price sales related to “cents-off” representations, introductory offers, and economy size 

packages. One significant addition is a section that notifies packagers that while some goods are exempt 

from FTC regulation, they nonetheless still fall under the purview of the individual state weights and 

measures laws. A majority of the revisions made by FTC to the FPLA were requested by the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures, where NIST staff serve as technical advisors.

Point-of-Contact: Laws and Metric Group (301) 975-4004.