alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67519-67520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26812]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73549; File Nos. SR-BATS-2014-028; SR-BYX-2014-011; SR-
EDGA-2014-16; SR-EDGX-2014-19]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc.; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Changes To Establish a New Market Data 
Product Called the BATS One Feed

November 6, 2014.
    On July 14, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), EDGA Exchange, 
Inc. (``EDGA''), and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') and, on July 18, 
2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (together with BATS, EDGA, and EDGX, the 
``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ 
proposed rule changes to establish the same new market data product 
called the BATS One Feed. The proposed rule changes were published for 
comment in the Federal Register on August 1, 2014.\3\

[[Page 67520]]

Two comments on the proposals have been received.\4\ On September 15, 
2014, the Commission extended the time to act on the proposals until 
October 30, 2014.\5\ On October 29, 2014, the Exchanges withdrew the 
proposals (SR-BATS-2014-028; SR-BYX-2014-011; SR-EDGA-2014-16; SR-EDGX-
2014-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72688 (July 28, 
2014), 79 FR 44941 (SR-BATS-2014-028); 72690 (July 28, 2014), 79 FR 
44929 (SR-BYX-2014-011); 72689 (July 28, 2014), 79 FR 44917 (SR-
EDGA-2014-16); and 72691 (July 28, 2014), 79 FR 44892 (SR-EDGX-2014-
19).
    \4\ See Letter from Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Themis Trading 
LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated August 21, 
2014; and Letter from Ira D. Hammerman, General Counsel, SIFMA, to 
Kevin M. O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated August 22, 
2014 (letters commenting on SR-BATS-2014-18).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 73101, 79 FR 56418 
(Sept. 19, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-028); 73102, 79 FR 56419 (Sept. 19, 
2014) (SR-BYX-2014-011); 73098, 79 FR 56415 (Sept. 19, 2014) (EDGA-
2014-16); and 73099, 79 FR 56418 (Sept. 19, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-19).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26812 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2052

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Steven Zuber, also known as Steve Zuber

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

 ____________

Submitted: April 12, 2022

Filed: April 28, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Steven Zuber pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, see

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drugtrafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and was sentenced as a career

offender to 216 months' imprisonment. Even though the sentence that the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines recommended was between 262 and 327 months, Zuber
maintains on appeal that this sentence is substantively unreasonable. More

specifically, he asserts that the district court1 considered only sentencing criteria "that

cast [him] in a negative [l]ight," and that the court's failure to give additional weight

to other matters more favorable to him amounts to an abuse of discretion.

We disagree. The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the district

court carefully considered the very matters, such as Zuber's health afflictions and his

struggles dealing with his son's suicide, that Zuber says it didn't adequately consider.

In fact, the district court varied down significantly from the recommended sentencing

range presumably because of the mitigating circumstances involved. Where a court

sentences a defendant below the Guidelines range, "it is nearly inconceivable that the

court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further." United States v.

Anwar, 880 F.3d 958, 973 (8th Cir. 2018). The district court has "wide latitude" to

weigh the relevant sentencing criteria, see United States v. Rogers, 20 F.4th 404, 406

(8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), and we discern no abuse of that discretion here.

Affirmed.

______________________________

1The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                                                           5 

        
<S>                                                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         FEB-28-1995 
<PERIOD-START>                                            MAR-01-1994 
<PERIOD-END>                                              FEB-28-1995 
<CASH>                                                              0 
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0 
<PP&E>                                                              0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      0 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         768,912 
<BONDS>                                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                                         0 
<COMMON>                                                       50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                  1,141,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                (768,912)
<SALES>                                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    0 
<CGS>                                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                        0      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0 

         

</TABLE>
EX-10.41



 





Exhibit 10.41




PHH CORPORATION

2005 EQUITY AND INCENTIVE PLAN




NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION

AWARD NOTICE




Accelerated Vesting Schedule Modification



On June 28, 2005, PHH Corporation (the “Company”) awarded you Non-Qualified Stock Options. A
portion of those Non-Qualified Stock Options would be subject to accelerated vesting on June 28,
2006, if the Company achieves certain targets for net income growth and return on equity for fiscal
year 2005. However, due to the changes in the Company’s business during fiscal year 2005, the
Compensation Committee has modified the accelerated vesting targets for 2005 as set forth below.
This document constitutes part of and is subject to the terms and provisions of the Award Notice,
the PHH Corporation Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Agreement (the “Agreement”), and the PHH
Corporation 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). The terms used but not defined in this
modification shall have the meanings set forth in the Award Notice, the Agreement, or the Plan.




	 	 	 
	Optionee:
	 	[Name]
	 
	 	[Address]
	 
	 	 
	Social Security #:
	 	[Social Security Number]
	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	June 28, 2005
	 
	 	 
	Number of Shares:
	 	[                    ]
	 
	 	 
	Exercise Price:
	 	$24.99
	 
	 	 
	Expiration Date:
	 	The Options shall expire at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the 10th anniversary of the Grant Date, unless fully exercised or terminated earlier.
	 
	 	 
	Performance Goals for Accelerated Vesting:
	 
	 	 
	Modified Vesting Schedule:
	 	Accelerated Vesting Date: June 28, 2006

25% of the Options shall become vested on June 28, 2006, if the Company achieves 100% of its target
(Pre-Tax Income After Minority Interest, excluding spin-off related expenses, equal to [***]) for the 2005 fiscal year.





All of the terms and conditions of the Non-Qualified Stock Option Award Notice, except those
modified above, remain in full force and effect.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PHH CORPORATION	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 	 	Title:	 	 
	 	 	Date: November              , 2005	 	 





RETAIN THIS MODIFICATION, YOUR NOTIFICATION, AND YOUR AWARD AGREEMENT WITH YOUR IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AS A RECORD OF THIS AWARD.






 




	[***] INDICATES MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN
REQUESTED. ALL SUCH OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
Exhibit 24.1


POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS,that each person whose name appears below constitutes and appointsThomas J. Sullivanand Fred L. Hite and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending January 1, 2011, of Symmetry Medical Inc. and any or all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





This power of attorney has been signed as of the 7th day of March, 2011, by the following persons:





/S/ FRANCIS T. NUSSPICKEL

/S/ CRAIG B. REYNOLDSFrancis T. Nusspickel,

Craig B. Reynolds,Director

Director/S/ JOHN S. KRELLE

/S/ JAMES S. BURNSJohn S. Krelle,

James S. Burns,Director

Director/S/ THOMAS E. CHORMAN

/S/ ROBERT G. DEUSTERThomas E. Chorman,

Robert G. Deuster,Director

Director/S/ BRIAN S. MOOREBrian S. Moore,Director
Form of specimen common stock certificate



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  

Xenogen Corporation 
  

							
	 	  	NUMBER                                     
   	  	SHARES                    	  	 
	SA	  	 	  	 	  	 

  

					
	 	  	 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
 THE STATE OF DELAWARE
	  	SEE REVERSE FOR STATEMENT RELATING TO
RIGHTS, REFERENCES, PRIVILEGES AND
RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY

  
 CUSIP
[                        ] 
  
 This Certificates that 
  
 is the owner of 
  
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, 
 PAR VALUE $0.001 PER
SHARE, OF XENOGEN CORPORATION 
  
 transferable only on the
books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

  
 WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
facsimile signature of its duly authorized officers. 
  
 Dated 
  
 [SEAL] 
  

			
	PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER	 	SECRETARY

  
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

  
 [                             ] 
  
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
  
 BY: 








 XENOGEN CORPORATION 
  
 A statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights as established, from time to time, by the Certificate of Incorporation and
by any certificate of determination, the number of shares constituting each class and series, and designations thereof, may be obtained by the holder hereof upon request and without charge at the principal office of the Corporation. 
  
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

												
	 TEN COM—
	  	as tenants in common	  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—	  	
	  	Custodian	 	 	

	 TEN ENT—
	  	as tenants by the entireties	  	 	  	(Cust)	  	 	 	 	(Minor)
	 JT TEN—
	  	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	  	 	  	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
	  	  	 	  	 	  	 	 	 	 
	  	  	 	  	

	 	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	(State	)	 	 
	 	  	 	  	UNIF TRF MIN ACT—	  	Custodian (until age)          under	 	 	 
	 	  	 	  	 	  	Uniform Transfers to Minors Act	 	 	 
	 	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	 	 	 	 
	 	  	 	  	 	  	

	 	  	 	  	 	  	 	  	(State	)	 	 

  
 Additional abbreviations may also be
used though not in the above list. 
  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
                             hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE:
Notice: This opin ion is subject to form al revision before publication in the Atl antic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal

errors so that correc tions m ay be made before the boun d volum es go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF AP P EALS

No. 1 5- BG- 7

IN RE: THOMAS PLIM PTON,

Res po nd en t.
Ba r Reg is tra tio n No. 4 36 57 1 BDN: 2 88 -1 4

BEFORE: Bec kwi th , Ass oc ia te Ju dg e, an d Ki ng an d R ei d, Se ni or Ju dg es

.

ORDER (FILED - Apr il 30 , 20 15 )

O n c o n s id erat io n of th e cert ifi ed or de r of th e Co ur t of App eal s of Mar y l a n d
di sb arri ng res po nd en t fro m th e pr act ic e of la w in th at juri sd ic ti on , se e Att or ne y Gri eva nc e Co m’n of Mar yl an d v. Pli mpt on , 10 5 A.3d 47 9 ( M d

. 20 14 ), th is co ur t’s

Ja nu ar y 2 9

, 2 01 5, or de r di rect in g res po nd en t to sh ow cau se why th e reci pr oc al
di sc ip li ne of di sb arm en t sh ou ld no t be im po se d, an d th e st at em en t of B a r C o u ns el

reg ard i n g r eci pr oc al di sc ip li ne , an d it ap pe ari ng th at res po nd en t ha s fai le d to fil e ei th er a r e sp on se to th is co ur t’s or de r to sh ow cau se or th e affi da vi t as req ui red by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) , it is

ORDERED th at Tho m as Pl im pt on is he reb y di sb arre d fro m th e pr act ic e of la w in th e Dis tri ct of Co lu m

bi a. Se e In re S ib le

y , 99 0 A.2 d 4 83 (D.C. 20 10 ), an d In re Ful le r , 93 0 A. 2d 194, 19 8 (D.C. 20 07 ) (reb ut ta bl e pr es um pt io n of id en ti cal reci pr oc al
di sc ip li ne ap pl ie s t o a ll cas es in whi ch th e res po nd en t d oe s n ot pa rti ci pa te ). It i s

FURTHER ORDERED th at fo r pu rp os es of rei ns ta te m en t res po nd en t’s pe rio d
of di sb arm en t wil l no t be gi n t o ru n u nt il su ch ti m e as he fil es an affi da vi t th at fu ll y

co m pl ie s wi th th e req ui rem en ts of D.C. Ba r R. XI, § 1 4 (g ).

PER CURI AM
Exhibit 32.1 

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, 

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Thomas F. Helms, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of North Atlantic Holding Company, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: March 31, 2005
8433, 8434.

#### DeBow *v.*Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific Railway; and *vice versa.*

Decided May 13, 1919.

(Certiorari granted to review judgment as to costs.)

Luke, J.

1. “It is essential to the legal rendition of a personal judgment against a foreign corporation, otherwise than by its voluntary appearance, that the corporation be doing business within this State. A foreign railroad corporation which neither owns, leases, nor operates any line of road within the State of Georgia is not doing business within the State, in the sense that liability to service is incurred because it maintains an office and employs an agent, resident in the State, for the merely incidental business of soliciting freight; especially where the transitory cause of action did not grow out of, and had no connection with, business so initiated.” *DeBow*v. *Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway,*148 *Ga.*738 (98 S. E. 381). Under this holding the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain and try this case, and this renders unnecessary any further statement than that the Supreme Court ruling overrules the decision in the case of *Bell*v. *New Orleans &c. R. Co., 2 Ga. App.*812 (59 S. E. 102), and therefore that case will not now or hereafter be followed.

2. Where a case was brought to the Court of Appeals by a bill of exceptions in which were assignments of error requiring for their determination a consideration of the evidence introduced on the trial, and which specified as material to an understanding of the case a brief of the evidence, and such a brief was sent up in the transcript of the record, and, after the rendition of a judgment by the Court of Appeals, reversing the judgment of the court below, the defendant in error took the case to the Supreme Court by certiorari, upon a petition in which were assignments of error requiring a consideration of the evidence, and to which was attached a certified copy of the entire record of the case in the Court of Appeals, the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court was based upon a ground which rendered unnecessary a consideration of the brief of the evidence was no reason for relieving the losing party from the costs of the certiorari to the extent of the cost of the transcript of the brief of the evidence. On motion it is ordered that the costs of the certiorari in this case be taxed against J. D. B. DeBow, defendant in certiorari.

*Judgment on cross-hill of exceptions reversed. Main hill of exceptions dismissed.*

*Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*716Action for damages; from' Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. November 11, 1916. (See 21 *Ga. App.*732).

*Atkinson & Born,*for plaintiff.

*Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw,*for defendant.
**Exhibit****31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

** **

**SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

March 29, 2016

 

I, John E. Peak, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reportson Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GE Dealer Floorplan Master NoteTrust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicingand other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the ExchangeAct periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicershave fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteriafor asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange ActRules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, BNY Mellon Trust ofDelaware and GE Capital US Holdings, Inc.

 

** **
1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2636

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Matthew M. Cunningham, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 18, 2010 Filed: February 25, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Matthew Cunningham pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), the district court 1 sentenced him to 120 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release. Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under A nders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.-2- The sentence, which represents a s ubstantial downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range of 188- 235 months, is not unreasonable, seeUnited States v. Lazarski , 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009); and having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________