alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 2.1

Registered Certificate No.: []

Ku6 Media Co., Ltd

(Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands)

SHARE CERTIFICATE

PRINCIPAL REGISTER: THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDER-MENTIONED
PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES, WITH PAR VALUE OF US$0.00005 PER SHARE AS DETAILED BELOW IN THE CAPITAL OF THIS COMPANY, SUBJECT TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY.

Name and

Address of
Shareholder

NUMBER OF SHARES:

GIVEN UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON [            Date            ]



For and on behalf of
Butterfield Fulcrum Group (Cayman) LimitedLOGOAs the Share Registrar for Ku6 Media Co., Ltd


No transfer of any of the Shares comprised in this Certificate will be recognised without the
production of the Certificate.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.8 Grants to United States participants to study. A citizen of the United States who has been awarded a grant to study may be entitled to any or all of the following benefits when authorized by the Agency. ( a ) *Transportation.* Transportation and miscellaneous expenses in the United States and abroad, including baggage charges, and per diem in lieu of subsistence while in a travel status. Per diem at the maximum rates allowable in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations, unless otherwise specified. Travel status shall terminate upon arrival at the place of study designated in the grant and shall recommence upon departure from the place to return home.
( b ) *Orientation and debriefing within the United States.* For the purpose of orientation and debriefing within the United States travel and per diem at the maximum rates allowable in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations, unless othewise specified.
( c ) *Advance of funds.* Advance of funds including per diem.
( d ) *Maintenance allowance.* A maintenance allowance at a rate to be specified in each grant.
( e ) *Tuition.* Tuition and related fees for approved courses of study.
( f ) *Books and educational materials allowance.* A reasonable allowance for books and educational materials.
( g ) *Tutoring assistance.* Special tutoring assistance in connection with approved courses of study.
From: Brian Coffey 

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 4:11 PM 

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce Smith; 

Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Clark Silcox; 

Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg 

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; 

Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. 

Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; 

Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: Engineering Data Exchange 

MV Committee Members,

Several of the group have proposed that DOE facilitate a bidirectional exchange of engineering data.

Attached is one kind of template that could be used to compare the ways in which different parties can

achieve certain efficiency levels. DOE would populate the spreadsheet with detailed design information

for the least cost transformers able to achieve the draft efficiency levels using different steels.

Data provided to DOE could then be compared to the DOE designs and differences explained. Because

this data would likely be considered confidential, Navigant is willing  to enter into nondisclosure

agreements with any party submitting such data. This process would first be used to verify the

engineering analysis of the current representative units and could be expanded to analyze scaling

relationships.

We welcome comments and specific suggestions of how this process could be implemented.

Best,

Brian Coffey

______________________________________________________________ 

Brian Coffey | Senior Consultant | Energy | Navigant Consulting, Inc.

1801 K Street NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC 20006 

+1.202.481.7521 Office
§ 290.25 Determination not to preserve a project or a part of a project. HUD may determine to demolish, or otherwise dispose of, a HUD-owned multifamily housing project, or any portion of such a project, or to foreclose a HUD-held mortgage on a multifamily housing project, without ensuring its continued availability as affordable rental or cooperative housing for low- and very low-income families under appropriate circumstances which may include one or more those listed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. If HUD decides not to preserve an occupied multifamily housing project at a foreclosure sale or sale of a HUD-owned project, tenants must be provided relocation assistance as described in § 290.17. ( a ) The costs to HUD of rehabilitation are such that the monthly debt service needed to amortize the cost of rehabilitation, operating expenses, and a reasonable return to the purchaser cannot be provided with rents that are, for subsidized and formerly subsidized projects, within 120 percent of the most recently published Section 8 Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing (24 CFR part 888, subpart A) or, for unsubsidized and formerly unsubsidized projects, within rents obtainable in the market.
( b ) Construction is substantially incomplete.
( c ) Preservation is not feasible because of environmental factors that cannot be mitigated by HUD or the purchaser. For example, when the project is located on a site that cannot be made to comply with the Section 8 Site and Neighborhood standards in 24 CFR 886.307(k) because of factors that adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of residents such as air pollution; smoke; mud slides; fire or explosion hazards. Preservation may also be infeasible because of significantly deteriorated surrounding neighborhood conditions with inadequate police or fire protection; high crime rates; drug infestation; or lack of public community services needed to support a safe and healthy living environment for residents.
( d ) HUD determines the project is unfit for rehabilitation.
( e ) Rehabilitation would cost more than constructing comparable new housing.
( f ) A reduction in the number of units in the project will enhance long-term project viability, for example, demolition of a building to provide space for a playground, open space, or combining one-bedroom units to create larger units for families.
( g ) Continued preservation of the project as rental or cooperative housing is not compatible with State or local land use plans for the area in which the project is located.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE THE CMC 

RIVERS v. COUNTY OF MARIN ET AL, CASE NO. C09-1614 EMC 

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

PATRICK K. FAULKNER, COUNTY COUNSEL 

Stephen Raab, SBN 180939 

3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 

San Rafael, CA 94903 

Tel.: (415) 499-6117, Fax: (415) 499-3796 

Attorney(s) for Defendants County of Marin 

William Burke, Mike Daly, and Terri Hampton 

David M. Poore, SBN 192541 

KAHN BROWN & POORE LLP 

30 Fifth Street, Second Floor 

Petaluma, California 94952 

Telephone: (707) 763-7100 

Facsimile: (707) 763-7180 

dpoore@kahnbrownlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SIMONE RIVERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIMONE RIVERS; 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF MARIN; WILLIAM BURKE 

MICHAEL DALY; TERRI HAMPTON; and 

DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: USDC 09 1614 EMC 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

TO FILE AND SERVE FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to continue the Case Management 

Conference, which is presently set for July 14, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., for 30 days to allow the parties to 

finalize the settlement. There is good cause in which to grant this request as the Marin County Board of 

Supervisors has now approved the settlement and the parties are working on finalizing the further 

written settlement agreement and release. This case is slightly more complicated that other cases in 

Case 3:09-cv-01614-EMC Document 51 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

RIVERS v. COUNTY OF MARIN ET AL, CASE NO. USDC 09 1614 EMC 

2

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

which the consideration is monetary. This case involves complex issues of retirement, COBRA 

benefits, and other non-monetary relief. . 

 

SO STIPULATED. 

 

Dated: ___07/12/10____________ KAHN, BROWN & POORE LLP 

 BY:______/s/ David M. Poore________ 

 DAVID POORE 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: ___07/12/10____________ PATRICK K. FAULKNER 

 MARIN COUNTY COUNSEL 

 BY:____/s/ Stephen Raab_____________ 

 STEPHEN RAAB 

 Attorney for Defendant County of Marin 

PROPOSED ORDER

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 

The parties’ stipulation and proposed order to continue the CMC is approved and Granted. The parties 

are ordered to appear on August __, 2010, at ________, for a further CMC to confirm settlement. 

DATED: _______________________ __________________________________ 

 HON. EDWARD M. CHEN 

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 3:09-cv-01614-EMC Document 51 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Shirley Radin, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Radin, Deceased, Appellant, v Louis Radin, Respondent.

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County, entered on April 27, 1976, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Gelfand, S., without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
#### McBRIDE v. NEW YORK TUNNEL CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 17, 1905.)

Action by Mary McBride, as administratrix, against the New York Tunnel Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
### §178. Patents for lands in New Mexico; lands contiguous to Spanish or Mexican land grants

Whenever it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior that a tract or tracts of public land, contiguous to a Spanish or Mexican land grant, in the State of New Mexico, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and sixty acres, has or have been held in good faith and in peaceful, adverse possession by a citizen of the United States, his ancestors or grantors, for more than twenty years under claim or color of title, and that valuable improvements have been placed on such land, or some part thereof has been reduced to cultivation, the Secretary may, in his discretion, upon the payment of $1.25 per acre, cause a patent or patents to issue for such land to any such citizens: Provided, That where the area or areas so held by any such citizen is in excess of one hundred and sixty acres the Secretary may determine what particular subdivisions, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres in the aggregate, to any such citizen may be patented hereunder: Provided further, That coal and all other minerals contained therein are reserved to the United States; that said coal and other minerals shall be subject to sale or disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and mineral land laws, and permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United States shall have the right to enter upon said lands for the purpose of prospecting for and mining such deposits: Provided further, That the term "citizen", as used in this section, shall be held to include a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or any State or Territory thereof.

(Feb. 23, 1932, ch. 52, 47 Stat. 53.)
### §9842. Records and audits

(a) Each recipient of financial assistance under this subchapter shall keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the proceeds of such financial assistance, the total cost of the project or undertaking in connection with which such financial assistance is given or used, the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit.

(b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipients that are pertinent to the financial assistance received under this subchapter.

(c) Each recipient of financial assistance under this subchapter shall—

(1) maintain, and annually submit to the Secretary, a complete accounting of the recipient's administrative expenses (including a detailed statement identifying the amount of financial assistance provided under this subchapter used to pay expenses for salaries and compensation and the amount (if any) of other funds used to pay such expenses);

(2) not later than 30 days after the date of completion of an audit conducted in the manner and to the extent provided in chapter 75 of title 31 (commonly known as the "Single Audit Act of 1984"), submit to the Secretary a copy of the audit management letter and of any audit findings as they relate to the Head Start program; and

(3) provide such additional documentation as the Secretary may require.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §647, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 505; Pub. L. 110–134, §17, Dec. 12, 2007, 121 Stat. 1422.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–134 added subsec. (c).
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANNA PRESTON, aka DONNA

MAE PRESTON,

Petitioner, 

 v.

MARY LATTIMER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-2262 WHA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

OF TIME

(Docket No. 22)

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s request for an extension of time, to and including

August 20, 2010, in which to file a traverse (docket number 22) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.09\PRESTON2262.EXT-P.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02262-WHA Document 23 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 10.4 SCHEDULE OF GRANTS MADE UNDER THE FORM OF AMENDED &
RESTATED 2005-2007 PERFORMANCE SHARE AGREEMENT Name
    
    Title
    
    
    No. of Shares
    
    
    Plan Governing GrantDavid Goronkin
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    44,630
    
    
    1995 Stock Option andCompensation PlanDiana Purcel
    
    Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer & Secretary
    
    
    14,628
    
    
    1995 Stock Option andCompensation PlanChristopher ODonnell
    
    Senior Vice President Operations
    
    
    14,628
    
    
    1995 Stock Option andCompensation PlanAdditional Employees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    61,034
    
    
    1997 Stock Option andCompensation PlanTotal
    
    
    
    
    
    
    134,920
§ 206.146 Debenture interest rate. ( a ) Debentures shall bear interest from the date of issue, payable semiannually on the first day of January and the first day of July of each year at the rate in effect as of the day the commitment was issued, or as of the date the mortgage was endorsed for insurance, whichever rate is higher. For applications involving mortgages originated under the single family Direct Endorsement program, debentures shall bear interest from the date of issue, payable semiannually on the first day of January and on the first day of July of each year at the rate in effect as of the date the mortgage was endorsed for insurance;
( b ) For mortgages endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, if an insurance claim is paid in cash, the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating such a claim shall be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of 2010 Management Incentive Plan


 


The
2010 management incentive plan (the “Plan”) of Heelys, Inc. (the “Company”)
is not formalized in any definitive plan document.  Set forth below is a summary of the material
provisions of the Plan, as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company
(the “Board”).  These provisions serve as
the criteria for payments of cash bonuses to the Company’s executive officers
for service in fiscal 2010.


 


The
Plan assigns a specific target bonus to each participant.  The target bonus for the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer is 50% of his base salary, and the target bonus for the
Company’s Chief Financial Officer is 30% of his base salary.


 


Under
the Plan, bonus payout amounts generally will be a percentage of each
participant’s respective target bonus, and will vary depending on the Company’s
financial performance during fiscal 2010. 
The Plan divides the Company’s financial performance into three
levels:  At the “threshold” level, the
participant will be eligible for 50% of his target bonus; at the “target”
level, the participant would be eligible for 100% of his target bonus; and at
the “maximum” level, the participant would be eligible for 200% of his target
bonus.  Bonus payout opportunities at
each level (i.e., threshold, target, and maximum) are based 25% on the Company’s
net revenue and 75% on its profit before tax. 
The Board may, in its discretion, adjust the payout opportunities at
each level to exclude one-time, non-operating items that may occur during
fiscal 2010.


 


All
bonus payout amounts are subject to prior approval by the Board.  The Board retains discretion to vary the
bonus payout amounts up to 20% (higher or lower), based on its subjective
assessment of the participant’s performance and contribution to achieving the
Company’s financial performance level. 
Each bonus payout amount will be made in a single, lump sum payment
during the period commencing January 1, 2011 and ending March 15,
2011 and is conditioned on the recipient being employed by the Company on the
bonus payment date.


 


The
amounts payable under the Plan are not determinable at present.  However, if, during fiscal 2010, the Company’s
financial performance reaches the threshold level, the maximum bonuses
available to our Chief Executive Officer (Thomas C. Hansen) and Chief Financial
Officer (Craig D. Storey), will be $107,500 and $30,000, respectively.  If the Company’s financial performance
reaches the target level, the maximum bonuses available to Messrs. Hansen
and Storey will be $215,000 and $60,000, respectively.  If the Company reaches the maximum level, the
maximum bonuses available to Messrs. Hansen and Storey will be $430,000
and $120,000, respectively.  All of the
foregoing amounts are before the discretionary subjective assessment that the
Board may make — which can vary the bonus payment amounts — up to 20% higher or
lower.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

9/24/2015 COA Case No. 02-14-00183-CR

SCOTT, JOHNNY CALVIN Tr. Ct. No. 1359184R PD-0850-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Friday, October 16, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

JOHNNY CALVIN SCOTT

TDC# 1927796

CLEMENTS UNIT

9601 SPUR 591

AMARILLO, TX 79107OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

9/24/2015 COA Case No. 02-14-00183-CR

SCOTT, JOHNNY CALVIN Tr. Ct. No. 1359184R PD-0850-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Friday, October 16, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

DISTRICT ATTORNEY TARRANT COUNTY

SHAREN WILSON

401 WEST BELKNAP

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

9/24/2015 COA Case No. 02-14-00183-CR

SCOTT, JOHNNY CALVIN Tr. Ct. No. 1359184R PD-0850-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Friday, October 16, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

LISA MCMINN

STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

P.O. BOX 13046

AUSTIN, TX 78711

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

9/24/2015 COA Case No. 02-14-00183-CR

SCOTT, JOHNNY CALVIN Tr. Ct. No. 1359184R PD-0850-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant’s Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Friday, October 16, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

2ND COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

DEBRA SPISAK

401 W. BELKNAP, STE 9000

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Velia NAJERA RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-20085

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Riley Friesell, Bellaire, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Velia Najera Ramirez appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction of illegal use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Najera Ramirez’s sole issue on appeal is that the district court erred by ordering her to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. This claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. *See United States v. Carmichael,*343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2003). Najera Ramirez concedes that this issue is foreclosed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.