alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.28


 


Synopsys, Inc. Director Compensation
Arrangements


 


•                  Cash:


 


•                  Annual retainer:
$125,000 per year.


 


•                  Per meeting fees
for Audit Committee members only, up to a maximum of four meetings per year:


 


•                  $2,000 per Audit
Committee meeting for regular members


 


•                  $4,000 per Audit
Committee meeting attended for the Chairperson


 


•                  Equity: pursuant
to the 2005 Non-Employee Directors Equity Incentive Plan (the Directors Plan),
in fiscal 2005, each director is eligible to receive equity compensation as follows:


 


•                  Any new director
receives an option for 30,000 shares, vesting in equal annual installments on
the date preceding each of the first four annual meetings of stockholders
following the grant date, assuming continued service.


 


•                  Each continuing
director who is reelected at an annual meeting of stockholders receives either (1) an option grant (with the number of
shares determined so that the aggregate “fair value” of the option, calculated
using the option pricing model used to estimate the value of compensatory stock
options in our financial statements, would equal the annual cash retainer then
paid to non-employee Board members) or (2) a restricted stock grant (with
the number of shares subject to the award determined so that the fair market
value of the restricted stock grant on the date of grant would equal the annual
cash retainer then paid to non-employee Board members). The option grant or
restricted stock vests in a series of 36 successive equal monthly installments
from the grant date, assuming continued service/


 


•                  The Board
elected to receive restricted stock for the 2005 grant and in May 2005 Synopsys
issued an aggregate of 7,010 shares of restricted stock to each non-employee
director under the Directors Plan.
<PAGE>

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 Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six month period ended June 30,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joseph Frattaroli, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

August 21, 2006

By: /s/ Joseph Frattaroli
   -----------------------
Acting Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)


      This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
~ .. \ 

In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: May 10, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

Redemption Air, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2013AL030106 

Respondent 

ORDER SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

On April 4, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and 

Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues in the above captioned case. 

On May 4, 2016, the parties submitted a joint report to the undersigned judge reporting on 

the results of their meeting. In the report, the parties suggested a telephonic prehearing · 

conference be held after July 15, 2016. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(1) and (7), it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall appear by telephone for a prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge on July 20,2016 at 3pm Eastern time. 

2. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 888-204-5984 and 

then inputting access code 6392406 when prompted. 

3. During the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss venue, the issues in 

dispute, the proposed litigation schedule, the status of any settlement negotiations, and 

any other related matters. 

Attachment: Service List 

~WALD Administrative Law Judge 

- -~ 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Brent R. Cole, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage AK 99501 

TEL: 907-277-8001 

FAX: 907-277-8002 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West 7th A venue, # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W ., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 10.2


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    New
      Language Amending Outstanding Option Agreements Under Plan

    (to
      be sent to each Non-Employee Director via letter)

    


    Section
      3
      of each outstanding Option Agreement for Non-Employee Directors is hereby
      amended in its entirety to read as follows:

    


    “3.
      Exercise Period

    


    Grantee
      may exercise all or part of the Option for vested Shares on any LNC business
      day
      at LNC’s executive offices until the first to occur of:

    


    (a) the
      tenth
      anniversary of the Date of Grant;

    


    (b) the
      first
      anniversary of the date the Grantee ceases to be a director with LNC on account
      of death or Disability, as defined in paragraph 2);

    


    (c) the
      fifth
      anniversary of Grantee’s Retirement (as defined in paragraph 2); 

    


    (d) the
      date
      that is three (3) months after the date on which the Grantee, having been
      requested to resign for reasons other than for Cause, as defined in Section
      12.7
      of the Plan, actually resigns; or

    


    (e) the
      date
      that Grantee ceases to be a director with LNC for any reason other than those
      described in (b), (c), or (d) of this paragraph.”
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136756 & (11) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136756 

 COA: 285016 
 Wayne CC: 07-008606

MARTIN J. SAM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

VACATE the defendant’s plea-based conviction of operating a motor vehicle while 

under the influence of intoxicating liquor-third offense (OUIL 3rd), MCL 257.625(1), 

(9)(c), because the prosecution concedes that it could not have prosecuted the defendant 

for this offense under the statute as it was written at the time of the defendant’s offense. 

See People v New, 427 Mich 482, 491-492 (1986); People v Hammond, 187 Mich App 

105, 110-113 (1991). We note that the November 29, 2007 judgment of sentence reflects 

a plea to the original charge of operating while intoxicated causing serious impairment of 

a body function of another person, MCL 257.625(5); the discrepancy between the 

judgment of sentence and the defendant’s actual plea to OUIL 3rd appears to have been 

the result of a clerical error. We REINSTATE the original charge of operating while 

intoxicated causing serious impairment of a body function of another person, MCL 

257.625(5), and REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for trial or for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 26, 2008 

 Clerk
### §14199. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 103–322, title XXVII, §270009, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2095, which authorized appropriations for fiscal year 1996, was omitted as obsolete.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer



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 Inergy Holdings, L.P. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Sherman, Chief Executive Officer of Inergy Holdings, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ John J. ShermanJohn J. Sherman Chief Executive
OfficerFebruary 9, 2006




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document 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.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 5 7 0

- C V

Style: Rita Lemons

v

. Betty J. Garmond, Mamie Bright, Justin Thomas, and Jacqueline R

. W o od a rd

Date motion filed: October 5, 2016

Type of motion: Motion for an Extension

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s motion is dismissed as moot.

Judge's signature: /s/ Justice Terry Jennings



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: October 18, 2016
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 2, 2017

jam

Order 

Clerk

August 2, 2017

156114 (21)

MICHAEL LEON POWELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 156114

COA: 337498

OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WARDEN and DIRECTOR OF 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $2.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$373.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
### Part C—Clean School Buses
§ 230.136 Definition of certain terms in relation to assessable stock. ( a ) An *offer, offer to sell,* or *offer for sale* of securities shall be deemed to be made to the holders of assessable stock of a corporation when such corporation shall give notice of an assessment to the holders of such assessable stock. A *sale* shall be deemed to occur when a stockholder shall pay or agree to pay all or any part of such an assessment.
( b ) The term *transactions by any person other than an issuer, underwriter or dealer* in section 4(1) of the Act shall not be deemed to include the offering or sale of assessable stock, at public auction or otherwise, upon the failure of the holder of such stock to pay an assessment levied thereon by the issuer, where the offer or sale is made for the purpose of realizing the amount of the assessment and any of the proceeds of such sale are to be received by the issuer. However, any person whose functions are limited to acting as auctioneer at such an auction sale shall not be deemed to be an underwriter of the securities offered or sold at the auction sale. Any person who acquires assessable stock at any such public auction or other sale with a view to the distribution thereof shall be deemed to be an underwriter of such assessable stock.
( c ) The term *assessable stock* means stock which is subject to resale by the issuer pursuant to statute or otherwise in the event of a failure of the holder of such stock to pay any assessment levied thereon.
[24 FR 6386, Aug. 8, 1959]
#### § 10.83 Oral arguments.

In his discretion the Administrative Law Judge may hear oral arguments by the parties any time before he files his initial decision with the Proceedings Clerk. The argument shall be recorded and transcribed in written form.

[41 FR 2511, Jan. 16, 1976, as amended at 60 FR 54802, Oct. 26, 1995]
§ 201.441 Commission consideration of Board determinations. ( a ) *Commission review other than pursuant to an application for review.* The Commission may, on its own initiative, order review of any final disciplinary sanction, including disapproval of a completed application for registration of a public accounting firm, imposed by the Board that could be subject to an application for review pursuant to § 201.440(a) within 40 days after the Board filed notice thereof pursuant to § 240.19d-4 of this chapter.
( b ) *Supplemental briefing.* The Commission may at any time prior to the issuance of its decision raise or consider any matter that it deems material, whether or not raised by the parties. The Commission will give notice to the parties and an opportunity for supplemental briefing with respect to issues not briefed by the parties where the Commission believes that such briefing could significantly aid the decisional process.
[69 FR 13179, Mar. 19, 2004]
§ 22.6 Futures commission merchants and derivatives clearing organizations: Naming of Cleared Swaps Customer Accounts. The name of each Cleared Swaps Customer Account that a futures commission merchant or a derivatives clearing organization maintains with a Permitted Depository shall: ( a ) Clearly identify the account as a “Cleared Swaps Customer Account” and
( b ) Clearly indicate that the collateral therein is “Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral” subject to segregation in accordance with the Act and this part.
### §16711. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section, Pub. L. 109–155, title IV, §411, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2923, related to governmental interest in aeronautics research. See section 40102 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
SCWC-11-0000661

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

STANLEY K. HUIHUI, JR.,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-11-0000661; FC-CR. NO. 10-1-271K)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Nakayama, J.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the memorandum opinion of the

court filed on June 18, 2014 is corrected as follows:

On the first page, the trial court case number is

corrected so that it now reads “FC-CR. NO. 10-1-271K.”

The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this change.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 5, 2014.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

Associate Justice

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0000661

05-AUG-2014

01:08 PM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41400

Conference Calendar

 

HERMAN PALMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION

COMPANY DEPARTMENTS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:00-CV-244

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

October 25, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herman Palmer, Texas prisoner number 537392, appeals the

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint for lack of exhaustion. Despite ample

opportunity to do so, Palmer has not shown that the district

court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Powe v. Ennis, 177

F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999); Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887,

890-91 (5th Cir. 1998); Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 380

(5th Cir. 1995). 
No. 00-41400

-2-

Palmer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because this appeal lacks merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

This dismissal of Palmer’s appeal as frivolous counts as a

“strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We note that

Palmer has at least one other “strike” against him. See Palmer

v. Jones, No. 00-40371 (5th Cir., Dec. 14, 2000). Palmer is

warned that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not be able to proceed IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4966-N-01]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice of appointment.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the appointment of Deputy Secretary Roy A. Bernardi as Chairperson of the Performance Review Board. The address is: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons desiring any further information about the Performance Review Board and its members may contact Earnestine Pruitt, Director, Executive Personnel Management Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-3000, telephone (202) 708-1381 (this is not a toll-free number).

Dated: November 12, 2004.

Alphonso Jackson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-26647 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
### Part A—Air Quality and Emission Limitations

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §117(a), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 712, designated sections 7401 to 7428 of this title as part A.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 356]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5076]]

Public Law 115-356
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 25 2nd Avenue in Brentwood, New York, as the ``Army Specialist Jose L. 
  Ruiz Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 5412]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST JOSE L. RUIZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 25 2nd Avenue in Brentwood, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist Jose L. Ruiz Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Jose L. Ruiz Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5412:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Nov. 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
508.802 Policy.

The Director of the Reproduction and Visual Arts Division in the Office of Communications (X) is

both GSA’s:

(a) Central printing authority.

(b) Liaison with the Joint Committee on Printing and the Public Printer on all matters related to

printing.

Parent topic: Subpart 508.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies