alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 

PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP. 

AMENDMENT TO PERFORMANCE STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT 
  

			
	To: 	 	Holders of Performance Stock Units granted pursuant to the Performance Stock Unit Agreement dated as of February 7, 2022 (the “2022 PSU Agreement”)
		
	Effective Date:	 	November 10, 2022
		
	Subject:	 	Amendment to Performance Vesting

 You currently hold certain performance stock units (“PSUs”) covering shares of common
stock of Playtika Holding Corp. (the “Company”) which are eligible to vest based on “Annual Revenue Growth Rate” (as defined in the 2022 PSU Agreement) pursuant to the 2022 PSU Agreement. The PSUs were
granted under the 2020 Incentive Award Plan of the Company (as amended to date, the “Plan”). The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has approved an amendment to the “Annual Revenue Growth
Rate” targets for purposes of the performance vesting schedule applicable to the PSUs granted under the 2022 PSU Agreement. This notice shall constitute an amendment of the 2022 PSU Agreement and no further action is required on your part.
Defined terms used herein without definition will have the meanings given to them in the Plan or the 2022 PSU Agreement. 
 1. As of the
Effective Date listed above, Section 1(a) of Exhibit B to the 2022 PSU Agreement shall be replaced with the following: 

(a) Performance Vesting. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 1 below, such number of PSUs shall
vest on each Annual Determination Date (as defined below) based on the Company’s Annual Revenue Growth Rate (as defined below) during the applicable Annual Performance Period (as defined below) as is determined by multiplying (i) the
number of PSUs set forth in the Grant Notice, by (ii) 25%, by (iii) the Revenue Growth Achievement Percentage (as determined in the applicable chart below). 
  

					
	 Annual Revenue Growth Rate for the

First Annual Performance Period
	  	Revenue Growth Achievement
Percentage	 
	 Less than 1%
	  	 	0	% 
	 1%
	  	 	50	% 
	 7.5%
	  	 	75	% 
	 9% or more
	  	 	100	% 

  

					
	 Annual Revenue Growth Rate for the

Second, Third and Fourth Annual

Performance Periods
	  	Revenue Growth Achievement
Percentage	 
	 Less than 1%
	  	 	0	% 
	 1%
	  	 	50	% 
	 3%
	  	 	75	% 
	 5% or more
	  	 	100	% 

 If the Company’s Annual Revenue Growth Rate for the applicable Annual Performance Period
is between two achievement levels, the Revenue Growth Achievement Percentage for such fiscal year shall be determined by linear interpolation between the applicable achievement levels. 











 Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 1 below,
Participant must not have experienced a Termination of Service prior to the applicable Annual Determination Date in order to be eligible for vesting pursuant to this Section 1(a) on the applicable Annual Determination Date. 

2. Except as specifically set forth above, all of the remaining terms of the 2022 PSU Agreement, including the remaining terms of the vesting
schedule, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40921

Summary Calendar

Undra Cornelious, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kirt Steifer, Warden, Michael Unit, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:20-CV-621

Before Stewart, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Undra Cornelious, Texas prisoner # 2140750, has filed a motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal of a case where the district 

court dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice for failure to 

state a claim. However, the appeal is both improper and untimely. First, he 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40921 Document: 00516344151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
No. 21-40921

2

appeals only the magistrate judge’s recommendation, not the district judge’s 

final judgment; we lack jurisdiction over that appeal. Further, his appeal is 

untimely, and he fails to assert any basis for extending the time for appeal. 

Accordingly, IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case: 21-40921 Document: 00516344151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2022
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129688(57) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. J. W. HOBBS CORPORATION, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 129688 

 COA: 254069 

Ct of Claims: 02-000166-MT 

REVENUE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT 

OF TREASURY, STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of July 

21, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0918 

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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Policy Analysis 

In National Security Affairs: 

New Methods for a New Era

In today’s globalizing world of accelerating change and 

mounting complexity, the United States is compelled to think and 

react faster than ever before. As a result, the need for sophisticated 

policy analysis in national security affairs is growing, yet awareness 

of how to practice this demanding art and science at high levels of 

government and for big-time policies is not widespread. This book 

is written in the hope of helping improve upon today’s situation 

and filling a cavernous gap in the professional literature. It provides 

an appraisal of three categories of methods that can be employed to 

analyze issues ranging from the lofty abstractions of national security 

policy to the concrete specifics of plans, programs, and budgets.

–Richard L. Kugler, chapter 1

 ndupress.ndu.edu
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7164** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. GEORGE KEVIN SAUNDERS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr ict of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:05

- cr - 00103

- RWT

- 1 )

Submitted : October 14, 2011 Decided: October 19, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
George Ke vin Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Kevin Saunders seeks to appeal the district

co urt’s order directing the Government to respond to Saunders’s motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Co hen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Saunders seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense w ith 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.96


 


Summary of the Private Instrument of Commitment
to Purchase and Sale of Real Properties, entered into on September 1, 2021, in connection with Fazenda São Simão.


 


Parties:
Agrifirma Bahia Agropecuária Ltda., as Seller; Francisco Ferreira Camacho, as buyer; and Brasilagro – Companhia Brasileira
de Propriedades Agrícolas as an intervening/consenting party.


 


Purpose: The
commitment to sell a total area of 4,573.27 hectares, of which 2,859.34 hectares are arable, to be split from the São Simão
Farm, for the total price, in Brazilian reais, equivalent to 714,835 bags of soybeans, to be paid as follows: (i) the first installment
equivalent to 107,224.55 bags of soybeans was paid in on December 30, 2021; (ii) the second installment equivalent to 21,445.84 bags of
soybeans was paid on June 10, 2022; (iii) the third installment equivalent to 14.296.61 bags of soybeans, shall be paid on October 24,
2022; (iv) the fourth installment equivalent to 57.187.36 bags of soybeans, shall be paid on June 10, 2023; (v) the fifth installment
equivalent to 50,039.05 bags of soybeans, shall be paid on October 10, 2023; (vi) the sixth installment equivalent to 85,779.64 bags of
soybeans, shall be paid on June 10, 2024; (vii) the seventh installment equivalent to 78,631.34 bags of soybeans, shall be paid on October
10, 2024; (viii) the eighth installment equivalent to 85,779.64 bags of soybeans, shall be paid in June 10, 2024; (ix) the ninth installment
equivalent to 78,631.34 bags of soybeans, shall be paid on October 10, 2025; (ix) the tenth installment equivalent to 50,038.13 bags of
soybeans, shall be paid on June 10, 2026; (x) the tenth installment equivalent to 50,038.13 bags of soybeans, shall be paid in June 10,
2026; (xi) the eleventh installment equivalent to 42,889.82 bags of soybeans, shall be paid in October 10, 2026; (xii) the twelfth installment
equivalent to 21,445.84 bags of soybeans, shall be paid in June 10, 2027; and (xiii) the thirteenth installment equivalent to 21,445.84
bags of soybeans, shall be paid in October 10, 2027.
PUBLIC LAW 106–288—OCT. 10, 2000 114 STAT. 919

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 72:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–770 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

July 24, considered and passed House.

Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–288

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Granting the consent of the Congress to the Red River Boundary Compact.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given to the

Red River Compact entered into between the States of Texas and

Oklahoma and the new boundary established by the compact.

(b) NEW COMPACT.—The compact referred to in subsection (a)

sets the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma

as the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River (except

for the Texoma area where the boundary is established pursuant

to procedures provided for in the compact) and is the compact—

(1) agreed to by the State of Texas in House Bill 1355

approved by the Governor of Texas on May 24, 1999; and

(2) agreed to by the State of Oklahoma in Senate Bill

175 approved by the Governor of Oklahoma on June 4, 1999.

(c) COMPACT.—The Acts referred to in subsection (b) are recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pursuant to section

10 of Article I of the United States Constitution.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—The compact shall not in any manner

alter—

(1) any present or future rights and interests of the Kiowa,

Comanche, and Apache Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation, and

the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their members or Indian

successors-in interest;

(2) any tribal trust lands;

(3) allotted lands that may be held in trust or lands subject

to a Federal restriction against alienation;

(4) any boundaries of lands owned by the tribes and nations

referred to in paragraph (1), including lands referred to in

paragraphs (2) and (3), that exist now or that may be established in the future under Federal law; and

(5) the sovereign rights, jurisdiction, or other governmental

interests of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes, the

Chickasaw Nation, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and

their members or Indian successors-in interest presently

existing or which may be acknowledged by Federal and tribal

law.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This joint resolution shall take effect on August 31, 2000.

Approved October 10, 2000.

Texas.

Oklahoma.

Oct. 10, 2000

[H.J. Res. 72]

114 STAT. 920 PUBLIC LAW 106–288—OCT. 10, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 72:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–770 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

July 24, considered and passed House.

Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Approved October 10, 2000.
§ 576.100 General provisions and expenditure limits. ( a ) ESG funds may be used for five program components: street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing assistance, and HMIS; as well as administrative activities. The five program components and the eligible activities that may be funded under each are set forth in § 576.101 through § 576.107. Eligible administrative activities are set forth in § 576.108.
( b ) The total amount of the recipient's fiscal year grant that may be used for street outreach and emergency shelter activities cannot exceed the greater of: ( 1 ) 60 percent of the recipient's fiscal year grant; or
( 2 ) The amount of Fiscal Year 2010 grant funds committed for homeless assistance activities.
( c ) The total amount of ESG funds that may be used for administrative activities cannot exceed 7.5 percent of the recipient's fiscal year grant.
( d ) Subject to the cost principles in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and other requirements in this part, employee compensation and other overhead costs directly related to carrying out street outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing, and HMIS are eligible costs of those program components. These costs are not subject to the expenditure limit in paragraph (c) of this section.
[76 FR 75974, Dec. 5, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 75939, Dec. 7, 2015]
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.256 Distributor or retailer complaint handling. ( a ) When a distributor or retailer believes that a manufactured home in its possession which it has not yet sold to a purchaser contains an imminent safety hazard, serious defect, defect, or noncompliance, the distributor or retailer shall refer the matter to the manufacturer for remedial action under § 3282.415. If the distributor or retailer is not satisfied with the action taken by the manufacturer, it may refer the matter to the SAA in the state in which the manufactured home is located, or to the Secretary if there is no such SAA.
( b ) Where a distributor or retailer receives a consumer complaint or other information concerning a manufactured home sold by the distributor or retailer, indicating the possible existence of an imminent safety hazard, serious defect, defect, or noncompliance in the manufactured home, the distributor or retailer shall refer the matter to the manufacturer.
#### Myrna Pabon, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 20, 1977, granting plaintiff’s motion for production of the transcript of a departmental hearing and permitting service of an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to plaintiff. Defendant is directed to produce a copy of the transcript and plaintiff is permitted to serve the amended complaint, both within 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry. Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Fein, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of John B. Heyward, Deceased. Viola C. Heyward, Appellant; Lillian B. Heyward, as Executrix, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied on condition that, within 30 days after the entry of the order hereon, appellant shall file the undertaking prescribed by statute (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 298); and on the further condition that appellant perfect the appeal for the October Term, commencing October 3, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. Cross motion by appellant for leave to appeal as a poor person or to dispense with printing, for an extension of time to file the statutory undertaking (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 298), and for a stay. Motion granted to the extent of: (a) permitting the appellant to dispense with printing and to prosecute the appeal on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on typewritten briefs; and (b) extending, until 30 days after the entry of the order hereon, appellant’s time to file the statutory undertaking. In all other respects the motion is denied, without costs. Appellant is directed to file five copies of her brief and to serve one copy thereof on the attorneys for respondent. The appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before September 1, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### **CHAPTER 803—ICE AND DERELICTS**

Sec.
80301.
International agreements.
80302.
Patrol services.
80303.
Speed of vessel in ice region.
80304.
Limitation on ice patrol data.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2014**—Pub. L. 113–281, title III, §314(b), Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 3049, added item 80304.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17I0252. TRAFFICCALMINGUSA,LLC v. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

INSURANCE CO.

Traffic Calming USA, LLC, defendant in this civil action, seeks interlocutory

review of the trial court’s May 15, 2017 order denying its motion for reconsideration

of the order denying its motion to dismiss. The certificate of immediate review,

however, was not entered until 11 days later, on May 26, 2017. 

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a partymay request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that tenday period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 176

(200 SE2d 748) (1973).

Here, although the trial court signed the certificate of immediate review on

May 25, 2017, the relevant date for determining the timeliness of the certificate isthe

date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App. 687 (204 SE2d 317)

(1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or interlocutory

judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within ten days after

entry of the judgment appealed from.”).

June 21, 2017
Because the trial court did not enter the certificate of immediate review within

ten days of entry of the order at issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider this

application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/21/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie James Robinson, Appellant.

Motion to resettle order entered February 22, 1962 denied. Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §55315. Minimum tonnage

(a) Definition.—In this section, the term "base period" means the 5-year period running from the sixth through the second prior fiscal years.

(b) Requirement.—For each fiscal year, the minimum quantity of agricultural commodities to be exported under programs specified in section 55314(b) of this title is the average of the tonnage exported under those programs during the base period, discarding the high and low years.

(c) Waivers.—The President may waive the minimum quantity for a fiscal year under this section if the President determines and reports to Congress, together with reasons, that the quantity cannot be used effectively for the purposes of those programs or, based on a certification by the Secretary of Agriculture, that the commodities are not available for reasons that include the unavailability of funds.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1646; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title I, §100124(c)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 915.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 55315 | 46 App.:1241g. | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title IX, §901c, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title XI, §1142, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1493. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "For fiscal year 1986 and" are omitted as obsolete.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 112–141 substituted "specified in section 55314(b)" for "subject to section 55314".
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 234 (Friday, December 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26751]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Emergency Awards: Rapid 
Investigation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 
(SARS-CoV-2) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
    Date: December 28-29, 2020.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70, 
Rockville, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mohammed S. Aiyegbo, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 761-7106, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#375a585f565a5a525319565e4e5250555877595e5f19505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85e8eaede4e8e8e0e1abe4ecfce0e2e7eac5ebecedabe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 1, 2020.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-26751 Filed 12-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>