alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.25


 


Mr. Kenneth L. Keymer


1065 Charles Towne Square


Atlanta, Georgia 
30328


 


Dear Ken:


 


We are pleased that you will be joining the
Board of Directors (the “Board”)
of VI Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”).  The purpose of this letter is to confirm the
terms of the compensation you will receive in exchange for your service on the
Board.


 


Annual Fee:  You will be paid a fee of $20,000 per annum
in exchange for your services.  These
fees will be earned and payable in substantially equal quarterly installments
for so long as you serve on the Board.


 


Stock Purchase:  Pursuant to a Management Agreement to be
executed by you and the Company, you will purchase shares of common stock of
the Company.  These shares will be
subject to certain vesting, repurchase and other obligations and restrictions
as set forth in the Management Agreement and in the Company’s Stockholders’
Agreement, to which you will also become a party.


 


Expenses:  The Company agrees to reimburse you for your
reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred in the performance of your services
as a Board member, provided you submit paid receipts or other documentation
acceptable to the Company.


 


Other Services:  The Company may engage you to perform
services in addition to those you perform as a member of the Board on such
terms, including rates of compensation, to be mutually agreed to by you and the
Company under separate agreement.


 


Relationship:  It is expressly understood that your service
will be at the pleasure of the Company and its stockholders and you and they
are free to terminate your position at any time.


 


No Other Understandings:  This letter sets forth our
entire agreement and understanding and supersedes any and all other agreements,
either oral or in writing (including, but not limited to, any agreement and/or
understanding pertaining to equity ownership in the Company), between the
Company, any of its stockholders, and/or principals and you concerning your
compensation as a member of the Board. 
No change to this letter will be valid unless in writing and signed by
the Company and you.


 


Governing Law:  This offer letter will be governed by and
construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware.


 


Please confirm your acceptance and agreement to the
terms described herein by signing on the space provided below and returning
this letter to the Company.


 

















 


We believe your skills and experience can play a
significant role in the future success of the Company and look forward to your
joining the Board.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Debra Koenig

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Debra Koenig

  
	
   

  	
  CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Accepted this 6th day of September, 2005.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Kenneth Keymer

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Kenneth L. Keymer

  	
   

  
						



 


2
§ 128.7 Prehearing conference. ( a ) ( 1 ) The Administrative Law Judge may, upon his own motion or upon motion of any party, request the parties or their counsel to a prehearing conference to consider: ( i ) Simplification of issues;
( ii ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings;
( iii ) Obtaining stipulations of fact and of documents to avoid unnecessary proof; or
( iv ) Such other matter as may expedite the disposition of the proceeding.
( 2 ) The Administrative Law Judge will prepare a summary of the action agreed upon or taken at the conference, and will incorporate therein any written stipulations or agreements made by the parties.
( 3 ) The conference proceedings may be recorded magnetically or taken by a reporter and transcribed, and filed with the Administrative Law Judge.
( b ) If a conference is impracticable , the Administrative Law Judge may request the parties to correspond with the person to achieve the purposes of a conference. The Administrative Law Judge shall prepare a summary of action taken as in the case of a conference.
[61 FR 48832, Sept. 17, 1996, as amended at 71 FR 20551, Apr. 21, 2006]
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2008\2261\Judgment.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTINE FALLAY,

Plaintiff,

    v.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY,et al.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 08-2261 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint, with prejudice, enters Judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of

Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010                                                              CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02261-CRB   Document 113   Filed 06/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T21:52:51-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4181 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4181

 To amend title 9, United States Code, to exclude employment contracts 
                and employment disputes from such title.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2012

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 9, United States Code, to exclude employment contracts 
                and employment disputes from such title.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9.

    Title 9, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 1, by striking ``of seamen,'' and all that 
        follows through ``interstate commerce''; and
            (2) in section 2--
                    (A) by striking ``A written provision'' and 
                inserting the following:
    ``(a) A written provision''; and
                    (B) by inserting after subsection (a), the 
                following new subsections:
    ``(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no 
predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable if it 
requires arbitration of an employment dispute. The term `employment 
dispute' means a dispute between an employer and employee arising out 
of the relationship of employer and employee.
    ``(c) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbitration 
provision in a contract between an employer and a labor organization, 
except that no such arbitration provision shall have the effect of 
waiving the right of an employee to seek judicial enforcement of a 
right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United 
States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public 
policy arising therefore.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 196.1 What is the Fellowship Program?

The Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs/Graduate Foreign Affairs Fellowship Program is designed to attract outstanding men and women at the undergraduate and graduate educational levels for the purpose of increasing the level of knowledge and awareness of and employment with the Foreign Service, consistent with 22 U.S.C. 3905. The Program develops a source of trained men and women, from academic disciplines representing the skill needs of the Department, who are dedicated to representing the United States' interests abroad.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6726

In Re: ANDRE KEBE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(8:97-cr-00357)

Submitted: July 17, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006

 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Kebe, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Andre Kebe petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the

district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. He seeks release from imprisonment based on the

delay. After Kebe filed the instant mandamus petition, the

district court ruled on his § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny

the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. The motion for appointment of counsel is

denied.

PETITION DENIED
(May 4, 1977)

#### Faruolo, Caputi & Weintraub, Respondent, v Thomas Baasch, Appellant.

In an action by a law firm to recover the amount of a counsel fee awarded to it for its representation of defendant’s wife in a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 18, 1976, which, upon the granting of plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment, (1) is in favor of plaintiff and against him in the amount of $1,000 and (2) dismissed his counterclaim. Judgment modified, on the law, by (1) deleting (a) so much of the first decretal paragraph thereof as granted plaintiff judgment in the amount of $1,000 and (b) the second decretal paragraph thereof, and (2) substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since defendant’s wife has already recovered a judgment for $1,000 against defendant, which judgment was affirmed by this court *(Baasch v Baasch,*52 AD2d 588), the present action is unnecessary. Plaintiff is free to proceed with any remedies available to it to enforce the said judgment. Special Term properly dismissed defendant’s counterclaims, in view of his failure to set forth evidentiary facts to support his allegations (see *Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y.,*7 NY2d 56). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.
exv4w22



 






Exhibit 4.22




February 1, 2006




     Re: Post-IPO Registration Rights


Dear NGTV Note Holder:




     You are the holder of a bridge note (the “Note”) issued in connection with a bridge financing
of NGTV in anticipation of NGTV’s initial public offering of units (the “Units”) comprised of
common stock and warrants (the “IPO”). Your Note will convert into Units at the time of the IPO in
accordance with the terms of your Note and the subscription documents you signed at the time of
your investment.



     You have previously elected to not have all or a portion of your Units registered as part of
NGTV’s IPO registration statement (the “Unregistered Units”), and instead you will be issued an
additional one half warrant. Such Unregistered Units will be afforded the following registration
rights by NGTV:



     NGTV will use its best efforts to cause the common stock underlying such Unregistered Units
(the “Common Stock”) and the common stock underlying the warrants underlying such Units (the
“Warrant Shares”) (the Common Stock and Warrant Shares, the “Registrable Securities”) to be
registered on an effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
“Registration Statement”), such Registration Statement to be effective on the first anniversary of
the effectiveness of NGTV’s IPO registration. NGTV may, in the good faith determination of its
board of directors, determine to postpone or delay the filing or effectiveness of the Registration
Statement if it is determined that such an undertaking would not be in the best interests of NGTV
and its stockholders. Registrable Securities shall include any securities of NGTV issued in
exchange for such Registrable Securities and all equitable adjustments made on account of such
securities including stock splits, issuances of dividends, recapitalizations and similar
transactions.



     If you have any questions regarding the above grant of registration rights, please contact
NGTV directly at (310) 556-8600.
#### § 232.15 Notice.

Any communication to USAID pursuant to this Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Republic of Tunisia Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-432

_____________________________

GARY MCCALLA,

Appellant,

v.

E. C. KENYON CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, INC., DOUGLAS 

HERRING, AND TIMOTHY YOUNG,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Adrian G. Soud, Judge.

December 27, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Peter A. Robertson, William Douglas Stanford, Jr., and Thomas J. 

Tollefsen of The Robertson Firm, St. Augustine, for Appellant.

S. Grier Wells, GrayRobinson, P.A., Jacksonville, and Kristie 

Hatcher-Bolin, GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellees.
#### Thomas Van Riper et al., Respondents, v Louise Agabian, Appellant.

In an action to recover brokerage commissions, defendant appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated June 10, 1976, which affirmed a judgment of the District Court, Nassau County, First District, Mineóla, entered May 22, 1975, in favor of plaintiffs, upon a jury verdict. Order affirmed, with costs. On this record we find there was adequate evidence to support the jury’s finding that plaintiffs-respondents had produced a prospective financially responsible purchaser who was ready, able and willing to purchase defendant-appellant’s home, and that all of the essential terms of the sale had been spelled out in a binder signed by the parties. Cohalan, J. P., Mollen and Rabin, JJ., concur; Suozzi, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the District Court and to dismiss the complaint, with the following memorandum, in which Hawkins, J., concurs: I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the plaintiffs herein, who are real estate brokers, brought about an agreement between the buyer and seller as to a closing date, which is a material part of a contract for the sale of realty. The binder, dated January 31, 1973 and signed by the buyer and seller, provided for delivery of the deed "on or before June 1st, 1973”. This language cannot be construed as making the time for closing of the essence. Indeed, such language is normally interpreted as affording each party an opportunity to request a reasonable adjournment of the closing date. When the parties met on March 14, 1973 to sign the contract, the defendant seller stressed her need for flexibility in a closing date and specifically asked for an extension of time, i.e., a few weeks or a month beyond June 29, 1973, the date fixed in the contract between *924respective counsel. The purchaser, however, insisted on a fixed date for closing; the defendant refused to agree to that demand, and the contract was never signed. The purchaser’s demand in this regard was inconsistent with the provision in the binder and clearly reflected the purchaser’s intention to make the time of closing a matter of essence. Accordingly, under the fácts herein, it is my view that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they had produced a buyer who had accepted the terms of the seller in respect to the time for the closing of title as provided for in the binder. Accordingly, the complaint should have been dismissed (see *House v Hornburg,*267 App Div 557, affd 294 NY 750).
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2004-17096; Airspace Docket No. 04-AGL-05]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This action corrects errors contained in a final rule that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 (69 FR 51946). The final rule modified Class E airspace at South Haven, MI.                    

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, November 25, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. Mark Reeves, Central Service Office, Airspace Branch, AGL-520, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, telephone: (847) 294-7477.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## History

**Federal Register**                     document 04-19372 published on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 (69 FR 51946), modified Class E airspace at South Haven, MI. An incorrect coordinate was used in the legal description and it also contained an incorrect airspace exclusion. This action corrects these errors.                

                        Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the errors for the Class E airspace, South Haven, MI, as published in the                         **Federal Register**                         Tuesday, August 24, 2004, (69 FR 51946), (FR Doc. 04-19372), is corrected as follows:                    

# PART 71—[AMENDED]

§ 71.1

1. On page 51947, Column 1; in the legal description; 

A. Change the coordinates for Watervliet, Watervliet Community Hospital, MI Point in Space to read; 

(Lat. 42°11′06″ N., long. 86°15′02″ W.)

B. Change “excluding that airspace within the South Bend, IN, Class E airspace area” to read; “excluding that airspace within the Benton Harbor, MI, Class E airspace area”.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November 16, 2004.

Nancy B. Kort,

Area Director, Central Terminal Operations.

[FR Doc. 04-27094  Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### §§ 219.112-219.129 [Reserved]
62 R6IW 60}

|__| Classification A - Open to Leasing with Standard Stipulations oO 0_ 20 40 60 80 100
Classification B - Open to Leasing with Minor Constraints Kilometers

(8 Classification C - Open to Leasing with Major Constraints __ : 10 20 30 40 50

HEB Classification D - Closed to Leasing Miles

Map 2-37
Oil and Gas Classifications
Alternative 3

(See Table 2-1 for additional information)

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
No: II-16-033 August 12, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Sends Confirmatory Action Letter to 

Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Facility Outlining Corrective Actions

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a Confirmatory Action Letter to the 

Westinghouse nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Columbia, S.C., acknowledging corrective action 

commitments the company will complete before restarting some of its uranium processing operations.

In May, during an annual maintenance shutdown, plant employees discovered an accumulation 

of uranium-bearing material in a scrubber system, which is designed to remove unwanted material from 

a number of plant processes. There were no actual safety-related consequences as a result of the 

accumulation of the material, but the potential for such consequences may have existed. After an 

analysis showed the amount of uranium was much higher than anticipated, the NRC launched an 

inspection to review the issue.

The still-ongoing inspection prompted the need for the Confirmatory Action Letter, or CAL, 

which outlines a series of corrective actions Westinghouse has already taken or will perform before 

NRC-licensed operations involving the scrubber system can be resumed. A copy of the CAL will be 

placed on the NRC website and is available from the NRC’s Region II Office of Public Affairs.

Those actions include shutting down affected systems in the facility, performing a root cause 

analysis investigation of the event, conducting a review and revision of safety culture, updating 

maintenance and management procedures, installing physical modifications to the system, training 

personnel operating and maintaining the system, reviewing other potentially affected systems, and 

retaining an external nuclear criticality safety expert to oversee such functions.

“The commitments outlined in the CAL will greatly reduce the likelihood of such incidents in 

the future,” said NRC Region II Administrator Cathy Haney. “Westinghouse management has 

cooperated fully and has assured us of their commitment to these corrective actions and continued safe 

operations.”

The issuance of the CAL does not preclude the NRC from taking other actions for any 

violations of NRC requirements that may be identified.

The NRC inspection into the issue includes visits to the facility and in-office reviews of the 

findings. A report will be issued within 30 days of the completion of the inspection.