alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


Schedule of Executive Officer Compensation


 


Set forth below is a description of the compensation that the Board of
Directors of Vital Images, Inc. determined to pay to its named executive
officers (defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) in their current
positions for the year ending December 31, 2005.


 


	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  2005 Base

  Salary(1)

  	
   

  	
  Securities Underlying 2005 Stock Option Awards(#)(2)

  	
   

  	
  Securities Underlying 2005 Restricted Stock Awards(#)(3)

  	
   

  
	
  Jay D. Miller,
  President and Chief

  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  240,000

  	
   

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Philip I. Smith,
  Vice President — 

  Marketing and Corporate Development

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  169,000

  	
   

  	
  20,000

  	
   

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
  Steven P.
  Canakes, Vice President — 

  Sales

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  161,000

  	
   

  	
  3,000

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Stephen S.
  Andersen, Vice President — 

  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  140,000

  	
   

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
  Jeremy A. Abbs,
  Vice President — 

  Quality and Customer Satisfaction

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,000

  	
   

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
  Vincent J.
  Argiro — Chief Technology 

  Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  128,000

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  



 










(1)  In addition, each Executive
Officer can earn a bonus in an amount equal to up to 50% of his base salary
(60% in the case of the President and Chief Executive Officer).  Of the total amount of the potential bonus,
45% is based on the Company achieving revenue targets, 30% is based on the
Company achieving certain levels of income before taxes and employment benefit
costs, and 25% is based on the achievement of individual goals and
objectives.  All Executive Officer
bonuses are subject to the discretion of the Board.


 


(2)  Under the Vital Images, Inc.
1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, each Executive Officer has been granted
stock option awards for the number of shares noted.  Stock
option awards vest at 28% in the first year from the grant date, and 2% per
month thereafter.  The stock options have
a term expiring on February 15, 2013, and the $15.40 per share exercise price
of the options is equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock
on the date each option was granted.


 


(3)   Under the Vital Images,
Inc. 1997 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, each Executive Officer has been granted restricted stock awards for the
number of shares noted.  Restricted stock
awards vest as to 25% of the number of shares subject to the restricted stock
award per year, beginning one year from the date of grant and continuing until
four years from the date of grant.


 


65
#### § 29.2407 Rule 16.

Injury tolerance shall be expressed in percentages. The appraisal of injury shall be based upon the percentage of affected leaf surface or the degree of injury. In appraising injury, consideration shall be given to the normal characteristics of the group.
§ 29.3041 Nested. Any lot of Type 31 tobacco which as has been loaded, packed or arranged to conceal foreign matter or tobacco of inferior grade, quality, or condition. Nested includes: ( a ) Any lot of tobacco which contains foreign matter, is damaged, injured, or tangled, or contains other inferior tobacco, any of which cannot be readily detected upon inspection because of the way the lot is packed or arranged;
( b ) Any lot of tobacco which consists of distinctly different grades, qualities or conditions and which is stacked or arranged with the same kinds together so that the tobacco in the lower portions of the lot is distinctly inferior in grade, quality or condition from the tobacco in the top portion of the lot.
[47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16757, 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

ANDREW JEROSIS GLOVER Case No: 3:97cr128-01/RV

USM No: 04290-017

Date of Previous Judgment: April 15, 1998 Randolph Murrell, Federal Public Defender

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of the defendant under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

DENIED.

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 35 Amended Offense Level: 33

Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III

Previous Guideline Range: 210 to 262 months Amended Guideline Range: 168 to 210 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time 

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Defendant Glover was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of Life imprisonment, and is ineligible for a sentence

reduction. See United States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2008).

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 4/15/1998 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: June 17, 2009 /s/ Roger Vinson

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:97-cr-00128-RV Document 259 Filed 06/17/09 Page 1 of 1
#### § 25.203 Submission of applications.

*General.* A separate application for designation as an empowerment zone or enterprise community must be submitted for each rural area for which such designation is requested. The application shall be submitted in a form to be prescribed by USDA in the notice inviting applications or other applicable notice as published in the Federal Register and must contain complete and accurate information.

[67 FR 13557, Apr. 24, 2002]
#### § 29.3531 Maturity.

The degree of ripeness. (See Elements of Quality, § 29.3586, and Rule 16, § 29.3617.)

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
This document uses frames if you are seeing this message then your	browser does not support frames. You can down load the PDF version of this 	report at the following location.
#### § 29.2555 Strength.

The stress a tobacco leaf can bear without tearing. (See chart, § 29.2601.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
Exhibit 32.2





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 on Form 10-Q of Maidenform Brands, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 4, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Christopher W. Vieth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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/ Christopher W.
      ViethChristopher
      W. ViethExecutive
      Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer(principal financial officer)





May 13,
2009





This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except
to the extent the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.
April 1, 2020 Ballot Access News

____________________________________________________________

Ballot Access News, Bx 470296, San Francisco CA 94147 (415) 922-9779, richardwinger@yahoo.com 6

PARTIES ORGANIZED IN ONLY A SINGLE STATE WITH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

State Year Party Presidential Candidate

Alabama 1968 National Democratic of Alabama Hubert Humphrey

Alaska 2008 Alaskan Independence Chuck Baldwin

Arizona 1932 Arizona Progressive Democratic Franklin D. Roosevelt

Arkansas 1992 Independent Party Ross Perot

California 2016 American Independent Donald Trump

Colorado 2016 Approval Voting Frank Atwood

Connecticut 2008 Independent Party Ralph Nader

Delaware 2004 Independent Party Ralph Nader

Florida 2004 Ecology Party Ralph Nader

Georgia 1944 Independent Democratic Thomas Dewey

Hawaii 2008 Independent Party Ralph Nader

Idaho - - - - - -

Illinois 1988 Illinois Solidarity Lenora Fulani

Indiana 1932 National John Zahnd

Iowa - - - - - -

Kansas 1968 Conservative George Wallace

Kentucky - - - - - -

Louisiana 1992 Prudence, Action, Results Ross Perot

Maine - - - - - - 

Maryland 2004 Populist Ralph Nader

Massachusetts 1992 Independent Voters Party Howard Phillips

Michigan 1936 Commonwealth William Lemke

Minnesota 2016 Independence Evan McMullin

Mississippi - - - - - - 

Missouri 1924 Liberal Robert La Follette

Montana - - - - - -

Nebraska 2004 Nebraska Party Michael Peroutka

Nevada 1892 Silver James B. Weaver

New Hamp. - - - - - -

New Jersey 1960 Conservative J. Bracken Lee

New Mex. 2016 Better for America Evan McMullin

New York 1980 Liberal John B. Anderson

North Carolina 1980 Independent Party John B. Anderson

North Dakota - - - - - -

Ohio - - - - - -

Oklahoma - - - - - -

Oregon 2008 Peace Ralph Nader

Pennsylvania 1968 Constitutional George Wallace

Rhode Island - - - - - -

South Carolina 2016 Independence Evan McMullin

South Dakota - - - - - -

Tennessee - - - - - -

Texas 1944 Texas Regulars Unpledged electors

Utah 2016 Independent American Rocky Giordani

Vermont 2000 Progressive Ralph Nader

Virginia 1960 Virginia Conservative C. Benton Coiner

Washington 1936 Christian William Dudle Pelley

West Virginia - - - - - -

Wisconsin - - - - - -

Wyoming - - - - - -

Exhibit D

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-5 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 1
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 08

- 00 764

- CV

Frank and Guadalupe SEPULVEDA

, Appellant s

v.

John VELENTZAS

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 11134

Honorable Peter Sak ai, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L ó pez, Chief Justice

Rebecca S immons , Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 23 , 2008

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed by November 12, 2008. No brief has been

filed. On November 20, 2008, we ordered that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen

days why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.8(a). We received no response. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:93-cr-01029-MP

RAY EPPS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 303, Motion [for] Reimbursement of Funds, filed

by the defendant, Ray Epps. Mr. Epps, who is acting pro se and claims to have little knowledge

of how to obtain the requested relief under the law, has filed the instant motion in a letter

addressed to the Court. In 1994, Mr. Epps pleaded guilty to a conspiracy involving the

distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine. As part of Mr. Epps’ sentence, the Court fined Mr.

Epps $38,600.00. Upon the Government’s motion (Doc. 300), the Court entered an order (Doc.

301) on November 22, 2006, remitting the unpaid portion of that fine.

According to Mr. Epps, he paid $1,500.00 per month toward his $38,600.00 fine while he

was incarcerated. Mr. Epps claims that the money for these payments came from benefits paid

to Mr. Epps by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Mr. Epps claims that he later

received notice from the VA that he should not have been receiving benefits after his arrest. By

that time, however, Mr. Epps claims that $36,650.00 of his benefits had already been paid

toward his $38,600.00 fine. The total amount of unearned VA benefits Mr. Epps received was

$46,660.01, as detailed in the letter from the VA attached to the instant motion. Mr. Epps claims

that, in order to collect this debt, the VA has been withholding $300.00 from his monthly

Case 1:93-cr-01029-MP Document 304 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:93-cr-01029-MP

benefits check as of April 2000. 

In his motion, Mr. Epps requests that the $36,650.00 he paid toward his court-ordered

fine be reimbursed. Although the grounds for the requested reimbursement are not entirely clear,

Mr. Epps appears to be arguing that the VA benefits diverted toward his fine should not have

been accepted by the Government, because no such benefits were due to Mr. Epps at that time. 

Therefore, the argument would seem to go, the Government is responsible for $36,650.00 of Mr.

Epps’ resultant indebtedness to the VA. 

A response from the Government is needed to resolve this matter. Accordingly, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Government is directed to file a response to Mr. Epps’ motion (Doc. 303) on or

before Monday, June 29, 2009. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:93-cr-01029-MP Document 304 Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 2
§ 295.7 Indexes. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) also requires an index of the materials required to be made available for public inspection and copying be published quarterly. Copies of this Index for FNS materials will be maintained for public inspection and copying during regular office hours in FNS Library, Room 810, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Va. 22302-1500. Free copies of the current index may be obtained by writing or visiting any of the FNS offices listed in the local telephone directory or those listed below: ( a ) Records Management Officer, Information Technology Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Va. 22302-1500.
( b ) Director, Financial Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 300 Corporate Blvd., Mercer Corporate Park, Robbinsville, NJ 08691-1518.
( c ) Director, Financial Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 77 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3427.
( d ) Director, Financial and Administrative Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507.
( e ) Director, Financial Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242-9980.
( f ) Director, Financial Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 550 Kearney St., San Francisco, CA 94108-2518.
( g ) Director, Financial Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 10 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02222-1069.
( h ) Director, Financial and Administrative Management, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1244 Speer Blvd., Denver, CO 80204-3581.
#### § 29.1163 Smoking Leaf (H Group).

This group consists of leaves normally grown at or above the midportion of the stalk. Leaves of the H group show a high degree of maturity, more open leaf structure in relation to the B Group, and a material amount of injury characteristic of very ripe leaf tobacco.

*Grades, Grade Names, Minimum Specifications, and Tolerances*

H3F—Good Quality Orange Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, strong color intensity, normal width, 16 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 80 percent; injury tolerance, 15 percent.

H4F—Fair Quality Orange Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, moderate color intensity, normal width. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 20 percent, of which not over 5 percent may be waste.

H5F—Low Quality Orange Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity, narrow. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

H6F—Poor Quality Orange Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity, stringy. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

H4FR—Fair Quality Orange Red Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, fleshy, lean in oil, moderate color intensity, normal width. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 20 percent, of which not over 5 percent may be waste.

H5FR—Low Quality Orange Red Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, fleshy, lean in oil, weak color intensity, narrow. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

H6FR—Poor Quality Orange Red Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity, stringy. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

H4K—Fair Quality Variegated Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, moderate color intensity, normal width. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 20 percent, of which not over 5 percent may be waste.

H5K—Low Quality Variegated Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity, narrow. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 30 percent, of which not over 10 percent may be waste.

H6K—Poor Quality Variegated Smoking Leaf

Mellow, open leaf structure, medium body, lean in oil, weak color intensity, stringy. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance 40 percent, of which not over 20 percent may be waste.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983; 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984; 51 FR 25028, July 10, 1986]
#### § 3.10 Aggressive agency collection activity.

An agency will aggressively collect all debts arising out of activities of, or referred or transferred for collection services to, that agency. Collection activities will be undertaken promptly with follow-up action taken as necessary.
§ 2811.4 Initial requests for records. ( a ) *Background.* The head of each OO division, each OO contracting officer, each OO leasing officer, and the OO FOIA officer is authorized to: ( 1 ) Grant or deny requests for OO records.
( 2 ) Make discretionary release of OO records when it is determined that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public and/or private ones in withholding.
( 3 ) Reduce or waive fees to be charged where determined to be appropriate.
( 4 ) Refer a request to the OO FOIA Officer for determination.
( b ) *Procedures.* Persons wishing to request records from the Office of Operations may do so as follows: ( 1 ) How. Submit each initial request for OO records as prescribed in 7 CFR 1.6.
( 2 ) Where. Submit each initial request to the head of the unit that maintains the records. See Appendix A, List of Addresses. Contact the FOIA Officer for guidance as needed. Or, submit the request to the FOIA Officer for forwarding to the proper officials: FOIA Officer, Office of Operations, USDA, Room 134-W Administration Building, 14th & Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.
#### § 28.426 Strict Good Ordinary Spotted Color.

Strict Good Ordinary Spotted Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Strict Good Ordinary Spotted, effective July 1, 1987.”
1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-17-1997

Bonenberger v. Plymouth Twp

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-1047

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Bonenberger v. Plymouth Twp" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 277.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/277
Filed December 17, 1997 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

No. 97-1047 

CHERYL BONENBERGER, 

 Appellant, 

v. 

PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP; JOSEPH LA PENTA, SERGEANT, 

PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 

APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

(D.C. Civil No. 96-cv-0043) 

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 25, 1997 

BEFORE: COWEN, ROTH and LEWIS, Circuit Judges. 
ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the last paragraph, on 

page 14, of the Slip Opinion filed in this case on December 

17, 1997, be amended to read as follows: 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

 court's order granting summary judgment with respect 

 to Bonenberger's Title VII claim of quid pro quo sexual 

 harassment and her section 1983 claim against 

 Plymouth Township. With regard to all other claims, we 

 will reverse the district court's order granting summary 

 judgment and remand for further proceedings 

 consistent with this opinion.10 On remand, the district 

 court is directed to reinstate plaintiffs' state law claims. 

 BY THE COURT 

 /s/ Timothy K. Lewis 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: December 17, 1997 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

10. We also reject Bonenberger's argument that the district court erred 

in permitting Appellees additional time in which to amend their 

summary judgment motion. Under the circumstances, this decision was 

well within the district court's discretion. 

 2
#### § 28.35 Method of classification.

All cotton samples shall be classified on the basis of the Universal Cotton Standards, the official cotton standards of the United States in effect at the time of classification.

[81 FR 7029, Feb. 10, 2016]