alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 131 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16374]



[[Page 33219]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[Docket ID USAF-2009-0043]


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete a system of 
records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
August 10, 2009 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Officer, Office 
of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, SAF/XCPPI, 
1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20330-1800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben Swilley at (703) 696-6648.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the address above.
    The Department of the Air Force proposes to delete one system of 
records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion 
is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 
(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or 
altered system report.

    Dated: July 7, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
F036 AFMC B

System Name:
    Systems Acquisition Schools Student Records (June 11, 1997, 62 FR 
31793)

Reason:
    The system is no longer in use.

[FR Doc. E9-16374 Filed 7-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
VRTX 10K_12.31.2012-Exhibit 10.46






Exhibit 10.46
 
Vertex Employee Compensation Plan


On an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal year the Management Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopts an employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees, including our named executive officers, together with performance goals for that fiscal year. The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base salary, performance bonuses which serve as short-term incentives and equity grants which serve as long-term incentives—that are designed to motivate, reward and retain employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic corporate goals.


Upon completion of each performance period (usually a calendar year), our Board of Directors assigns a performance rating on the basis of achievement of goals for the company set by the Board, in consultation with our chief executive officer, early in the performance period. The amount available for payment of performance bonuses is established on the basis of this performance rating, and is allocated to employees on the basis of salary tier and individual performance rating. The base salaries of the executive officers are set based on market and other competitive factors. Merit increases to base salaries for other employees are made on the basis of individual performance rating. Annual equity grants, made in the form of stock options, restricted stock grants or units, or a combination of both are made on the basis of salary tier and individual performance.


The Board of Directors retains broad discretion to determine the appropriate form and level of compensation, particularly for our executives, on the basis of its assessment of our executives, the demand for talent, our performance and other factors. Key corporate performance factors generally include, among other things, achievement of regulatory and commercialization goals, research and development productivity, enhancements of organizational capabilities, maintenance of financial stability and other aspects of our performance. We reserve the right to modify the plan, and the key corporate performance factors and criteria under the plan, at any time.


On February 5, 2013, the Board of Directors determined the cash bonus awards related to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and annual salaries effective February 2013.
Exhibit 10.31

SCIELE PHARMA, INC.        EXECUTIVES' COMPENSATION FOR 2007 SUMMARY SHEET

|Name             |  | Position(2)                                                                |  | Year      |  | Base Salary |                 | Targeted Bonus
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------- |  | ----------- | --------------- | --------------
|Patrick Fourteau |  | Chief Executive Officer                                                    |  | 2007
2008 |  | $$          | 375,000
397,500 |               
|Darrell Borne    |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer |  | 2007
2008 |  | $$          | 280,000
297,000 |               
|Ed Schutter      |  | President and Chief Operating Officer                                      |  | 2007
2008 |  | $$          | 280,000
325,000 |               
|Larry Dillaha    |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Medical Officer                            |  | 2007
2008 |  | $$          | 240,000
260,000 |               
|Leslie Zacks     |  | Executive Vice President of Legal and Compliance                           |  | 2007
2008 |  | $$          | 250,000
260,000 |               

---

---



QuickLinks
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VII – Additional Communications About Service and Compensation Reports

Chapter 4: Form Letter GL-132, Annuitant Return to Service

1

Why is Form GL-132 Sent?

Form Letter GL-132 is designed to determine if service months, reported after an annuitant's 

annuity beginning date, are properly credited. An annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act 

(RRA) is not payable for any month in which an employee works or otherwise earns creditable 

service from an employer covered under the RRA. If service is reported for a month that is after 

the month an employee was awarded an annuity under the RRA, a Form Letter GL-132 will be 

sent to clarify the service.

It is important that the responses to GL-132 letters are properly completed. The Railroad 

Retirement Board will take action based on your response. This action may result in recovery of 

benefits paid to your employee.

Completing Form Letter GL-132

To complete Form Letter GL-132, first refer to the service month detail in Part I. A "1" indicates 

a reported service month and a "0" indicates that no service month was reported. Review the 

service month information for accuracy. Go to Part II and check the applicable response.

Check the first response if the service month detail is incorrect. The RRB will remove the service 

month(s) from the annuitant's record. You do not need to file Form BA-4, "Report of Creditable 

Compensation Adjustments".

Check the second response if the service month detail is correct and provide an explanation as to 

why the employee is entitled to the service month(s). Keep in mind that service is always 

creditable when the service is performed, not when the payment is made and taxed. Service 

should never be reported for a month after the relinquishment of the employment relationship.

If neither of the two responses applies, call: 

If neither of the two responses applies, contact:

Quality Reporting Service Center

Railroad Retirement Board

844 North Rush Street, 7th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

Phone:(312) 751-4992

Fax: (312) 751-7123

Email:QRSC@rrb.gov
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe annual report of Click Commerce, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Nelson,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Theforegoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not beconsidered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
| Date: March 31, 2006 | /s/ MICHAEL W. NELSON    |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Doug Sabella, Chief Executive Officer of Veraz Networks, Inc. (the Company), and Al Wood, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 14th day of November, 2008.



/s/ Doug SabellaDoug SabellaCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/ Al WoodAl WoodCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q 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 Veraz Networks, 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), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 23.1

BAGELL, JOSEPHS
& COMPANY, L.L.C.
Certified Public Accountants


                                                 High Ridge Commons
                                                 Suites 400-403
                                                 200 Haddonfield Berlin Road
                                                 Gibbsboro, New Jersey 08026
                                                 P: 856-346-2828 F: 856-346-2882


May 9, 2005

The Board of Directors
SiteWorks, Building & Development Co.,
6464 N W` 5th Wat, Ft. Lauderdale Fl .


Ref:     Consent to use of financial statements

         We consent to the use of our consolidated financial statements dated
December 31, 2005 with respect to SiteWorksBuilding & Development Co.,. and
subsidiary for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, included herein on
annual reports and reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the
company's prospectus.

/s/ Bagell Josephs & Company LLC

Gibbsboro, New Jersey
May 9, 2006

                                       1
Case 2:11-cr-00023-SRC Document 16 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 22
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Form S-8 No. 333-45260 and Form S-8 No. 333-62032) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-45262) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-62024) pertaining to the 2001 Supplemental Stock Option Plan of Airspan Networks, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Airspan Networks, Inc.included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

*Ernst & Young LLP*

 

London England

March 28, 2003
1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Bezalel GROSSBERGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

Patrick RUANE and Marion RUANE,

Defendants.

 

 

Civ. No. 11-3728

OPINION

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter has come before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Bezalel Grossberger’s

(“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Disqualify Judge Anne E. Thompson in the above-captioned case. 

(Doc. No. 45). The Court has decided the motion on the papers pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 78(b). For the reasons included herein, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

ANALYSIS

Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, “Whenever a party to any [district court] proceeding . . . files a 

timely and sufficient affidavit that the [presiding] judge . . . has a personal bias or prejudice 

either against him or in favor of any adverse party,” the judge shall cease all involvement in the 

case and the case shall be reassigned. The complaining affidavit “shall state the facts and the

reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists.” Id. The mere filing of an affidavit of bias 

pursuant to Section 144, however, does not require a trial judge to disqualify herself. See United 

States v. Dansker, 37 F.2d 40, 53 (3d Cir. 1976) (citing Behr v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 233 

F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1956)). “[I]f the affidavit submitted is legally insufficient to compel 

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 47 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 293
2

disqualification, the judge has a duty to preside.” Dansker, 37 F.2d at 53 (citing Simmons v. 

United States, 302 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1962)). 

In the instant case, Plaintiff has submitted his affidavit demanding the judge’s 

disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under Section 455(a), a federal judge must 

“disqualify [her]self in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The appropriate test “is whether a reasonable person, with 

knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” In re Kensington Intern. Ltd., 353 F.3d 211, 220 (3d Cir. 2003). Section 455(b)(1), 

in contrast, “is more narrow in that it requires a judge to disqualify [herself] only if ‘[she] has a 

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary 

facts concerning the proceeding.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1)).

Upon review of Plaintiff’s submitted affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to 

present coherent evidence that the judge’s impartiality in this case might reasonably be 

questioned or that there exists any personal bias or prejudice for or against any party. To the 

extent that Plaintiff’s motion relies upon his disagreements with previous actions taken by this

Court, these alone cannot serve as the basis for disqualification.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify, (Doc. No. 45), is 

denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/Anne E. Thompson

ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

Dated: February 13, 2013

Case 3:11-cv-03728-AET-LHG Document 47 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 294
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 44
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 45
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 46
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 47
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 48
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 49
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 50
Case 2:11-cr-00421-SDW Document 26 Filed 06/22/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 51
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10



                    Anhui Fuyang Xinte Medical Sales Contract
                                                                                  Date: 2007-5-09
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Brand name                 Description       Unit       Unit price     Quantity       Amount
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
<S>                        <C>               <C>        <C>             <C>           <C>

Hepatocyte                 20mgx10           Box        33             42000          1386000
growth-promoting factor
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Ozagrel     Sodium    for  80mgx10           Box        77.80          12000          933600
Injection
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Pusen ok                   63                Box        7              112000         784000
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Pusen ok                   103               Box        11             100000         1100000
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Gastrodin injection        2ml x 10          Box        29             16000          464000
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Buflomedil                 0.15g x 24        Box        15             36000          540000
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
Total amount                                                                          RMB5202600
-------------------------- ----------------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------------
</TABLE>



1.[ ] Term of quality guarantee:
2.[ ] Way of payment: prepaid.
3.[ ] Way of delivery and fees charged: supplier in charge.
4.[ ] The package is satisfied the standard.
5.[ ] The quality is satisfied the standard, attach the quality inspection
      certificate.
6.[ ] Inspection of goods:
7.[ ] Validity of the contract:
8.[ ] Other arguments: by negotiation
9.[ ] The contract is valid at the time of signature and stamp.






Anhui   Fuyang   Xinte   Pharmaceutical   Company  &  Hainan   Helpson   Medical
Bio-Technology Company
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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Steven Sjogren, President and 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, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2007



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ C. Steven Sjogren                
|C. Steven Sjogren                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Opinion issued April 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00388-CR

———————————

ROBERT MITCHELL ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 0779737

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Robert Mitchell Alexander, is attempting to appeal from the trial 

court’s refusal to rule on his motion for a nunc pro tunc hearing and for an order for 

unauthorized verdict and void illegal sentence. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
2

The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may 

appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized 

by statute. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 

52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The Court’s records indicate that appellant appealed his 

conviction and that conviction was affirmed by opinion issued on October 28, 1999. 

See Alexander v. State, No. 01-98-00506-CR, 1999 WL 977815 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 28, 1999, pet. ref’d). The clerk’s record contains no 

subsequent appealable order entered by the trial court. The trial court refused to sign 

a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. 

Because appellant has not appealed from an order or judgment of conviction 

for which there is statutory authorization, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See 

Ragston, 424 S.W.3d at 52 (whether court of appeals has jurisdiction depends upon 

whether appeal is authorized by law). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Any 

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crim. No. 11-366. (JLL) v.

JOHN ALFY SALAMA MARKUS,

a/k/a “John Salama,”

a/k/a “John Alfy Salama”

ORDER

The parties in this matter having appeared for a status

conference before the Court on April 16, 2012 (for the United

States of erica, Sandra L. Moser, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing; for defendant John Alfy Salama Markus, Michaej Rogers,

Esq., appearing):

[1U’ IT IS on this 1lth day of April, 2012,

ORDERED that: Defendant’s pre—trial motions shall b filed

on or before June 15, 2012; the Government’s response to

defendant’s pre-trial motions and any affirmative motions shall

be filed on or before July 13, 2012; and oral argument, if

required, shall be held on a date to be determined by the Court.

Other motions, including but not limited to motions in limine and

Rule 404(b) notices, shall be filed according to a schedule to be

determined at a later date by the Court.

Case 2:11-cr-00366-JLL Document 38 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 203
HI

Ci)H

I-HC-)

H

Ft

0

CDC!) I-I

0 CD

CDCD Ft

a

‘-< HDi

H HI

11H- S

Di

0

HI Ft

H

0

C) ::5

Ft CI)

0 Cl)

Di

HI HI

HI

—I

• CD

CD

C)HI

C)a

CDa

I-I0

S

C)0

S

C)

FtH

Ft

C)a

CD

C)

SCD

Ft

CD

H0

a

0S

Ft

CD

a

DiFt

CD

0

FtHCl)

0ii

a

CDII

Ft

0

Ft

CD

aDi

FtCD

0

0

Di

HI

HIH

HI

C’)

x1

Hx

U)

00

U)

U)0

Ft

Di

Ft

0

00

a

C)Di

C)Cl)

CD

0)

0

C!)H

H

U).

Ci)

0

CD

FtHS

CD

Case 2:11-cr-00366-JLL Document 38 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 204