alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Short-Term Incentives




Exhibit
10.20




Theragenics
Corporation® Short-Term Incentives




The
following short-term incentives for the Executive Officers of the Company,
providing for 2004 cash bonus opportunities upon the achievement of certain
goals set forth below, were recommended by the Compensation Committee on May 11,
2004 and approved by the Board of Directors on June 21, 2004:

 


	 	
      (1)
	
      Chief
      Executive Officer:

       

      Target (%
      of Base Salary) - 50%

      Maximum
      (% of Base Salary) - 100%

	 	
      (2)
	
      Chief
      Financial Officer:

       

      Target (%
      of Base Salary) - 40%

      Maximum
      (% of Base Salary) - 80%

	 	
      (3)
	
      EVP
      - Strategy, Development & Acquisitions:

       

      Target (%
      of Base Salary) - 35%

      Maximum (%
      of Base Salary) - 70%

	 	
      (4)
	
      EVP
      - Organizational Development:

       

      Target
      (% of Base Salary) - 35%

      Maximum (%
      of Base Salary) - 70%

	 	
      (5)
	
      General
      Counsel:

       

      Target (%
      of Base Salary) - 35%

      Maximum
      (% of Base Salary) - 70%





With
regard to the above, 60% of the target opportunity was tied to financial
performance, evenly split (30% + 30%) between revenue and earnings per share
goals. These goals were recommended by the Compensation Committee and approved
by the Board. The remaining 40% of the target opportunity was tied to individual
performance objectives, which were recommended by the Compensation Committee and
approved by the Board. In the case of Ms. Jacobs, the financial and
individual performance objectives were recommended by the Compensation Committee
and approved by the independent directors of the Board. 




Information
regarding short-term incentives paid for 2004 and a description of the
short-term incentives for 2005 are included in the Company’s Form 8-K filed
February 14, 2005 and incorporated by reference herein.
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

___________

No. 96-2341

___________

Southern Pacific *

Transportation Company; *

St. Louis Southwestern *

Railway Company, *

*

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas

Asplundh Brush Control Company, *

Asplundh Railroad Division, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

 Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 14, 1997

 Filed: March 11, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and KOPF, District

1

Judge.

___________

KOPF, District Judge.

The Southern Pacific Transportation Company and St. Louis

Southwestern Railway Company (Railroad) entered into an agreement

with Asplundh Brush Control Company (Asplundh) in which Asplundh

agreed to spray for weeds along the Railroad’s right of way. The

agreement contained various indemnity provisions. A general

indemnity provision concerning a variety of topics, including

personal injury liability, exempted Asplundh from the indemnity

obligation if the Railroad was negligent. In another provision
relating to chemical use, Asplundh agreed to indemnify the Railroad

for liabilities “arising out of use of the chemicals to be applied
 The Honorable Henry Woods, Senior United States District

2

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-3-

hereunder, including (but without limitation) claims or liability

due to drift of the chemicals and harm to trees, crops, shrubs or

vegetation of any kind, and livestock, regardless of any negligence

of employees of Railroad.”

Although Asplundh had sprayed the Mounds, Arkansas, crossing,

weeds grew high. A serious personal injury accident followed when

vision at the crossing was obstructed by the weeds. In a state

court suit brought by an injured party, a jury found the Railroad

was negligent, but Asplundh was not negligent. The evidence

revealed that despite knowing that the chemicals had not controlled

the weeds at the Mounds crossing, the Railroad failed to notify

Asplundh of the problem, thus failing to give Asplundh an

opportunity to respray the area.

The Railroad brought this action seeking indemnity from

Asplundh, claiming the chemical-use provision of the contract

required Asplundh to indemnify the Railroad for personal injury

liability even if the Railroad was negligent because such liability

arose out of the use of chemicals. With the material facts

undisputed, and the parties’ agreement that the contract was

unambiguous, the district court granted summary judgment for

2

Asplundh. The court held that the “chemical-use” provision of the

contract was limited to the harmful effects of chemicals to

property.

The Railroad appeals, claiming the district court erred when

it applied settled Arkansas rules of contract interpretation to the

indemnity provisions of the contract. Having reviewed the parties’
-4-

briefs and submissions, we conclude that no error of law appears.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People *of*the State *of*New York, Respondent, v. Alvin H. Peterson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts as to the first and second counts of the indictment, and as to said counts indictment dismissed, and in all other respects judgment affirmed. Memorandum: The proof did not establish the essential elements of the crimes of conspiracy, contrary to section 580-a of the Penal Law, and murder first degree, contrary to sections 2 and 1044 of the Penal Law as to defendant. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court and a jury, convicting defendant of murder first, accessory, and conspiracy.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ.
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 of Ithaka Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Eric M. Hecht, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|    |  |                                                                                    |  |  |  |                    
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Eric M. Hecht                                                                  |  |  |  | Dated: May 15, 2007
|    |  | Eric M. Hecht                                                                      |  |  |  |                    
|    |  | President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer) |  |  |  |
#### §§ 205.312-205.399 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Allen, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on November 17, 1978, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur — Birns, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL RAY EKES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20cv144-TKW-EMT 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 7). No objections were filed. Having reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation and the case file, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that this case was filed in the wrong court under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) 

and should be transferred to the correct court. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the Clerk shall close the file in this 

Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00144-TKW-EMT Document 8 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

| Dated: | May 10, 2007 |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY P FUND,   LLC                      |
|--------|--------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |         |   |   |                                                |
|   |         |   |   |                                                |
|   |         |   | By:    | /s/  ROBERT E.   SWANSON                  |
|   |         |   |   |                                                     |
|   |         |   | Name:  | Robert E. Swanson                                   |
|   |         |   | Title: | President and Chief   Executive Officer             |
|   |         |   |   | (Principal Executive   Officer)                     |
|   |         |   |   |                                                |
| Dated: | May 10, 2007 |   |   |                                                |
|   |         |   | By:    | /s/  KATHLEEN P.   MCSHERRY               |
|   |         |   |   |                                                     |
|   |         |   | Name:  | Kathleen P. McSherry                                |
|   |         |   | Title: | Senior Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer |
|   |         |   |   | (Principal Financial and   Accounting Officer)      |

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy P Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 Corrected Version Dated
October 10, 2007
 Amendment and Supplement to Pipeline Lease Agreement
  RECITALS
      Definitions.
 Recitals Paragraphs.
 Amendment to Initial Lease.




---



##### 



Option for Expansion Lease. th
 Amendments to Rent Amount. Base Rent Adjuster
 Exercise of Second Lease Renewal Option. Option to Renew
 Deletion of Section 24 EARLIER TERMINATION
 Effect of Amendment.




---



##### 



HEP PIPELINE ASSETS, LIMITED PARTNERSHIPBy:
    
    HEP Pipeline GP, L.L.C.its General Partner,By:
    
    Holly Energy Partners  Operating, L.P.its Sole MemberBy:
    
    /s/ David G. Blair

David G. BlairSenior Vice President10/09/2007
Date of SignatureALON USA, LPBy:
    
    ALON USA, GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its General PartnerBy:
    
    /s/ Joseph A. Concienne10/10/2007Date of Signature
#### § 29.2402 Rule 11.

Interpretations, the use of specifications, and the meaning of terms shall be in accordance with determinations or clarifications made by the Chief of the Standards and Testing Branch and approved by the Director.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2112 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2112

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, as the ``National 
  Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
               Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL CLANDESTINE SERVICE OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 
              AGENCY NCS OFFICER GREGG DAVID WENZEL MEMORIAL POST 
              OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 787 State Route 17M in Monroe, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``National Clandestine Service of the Central 
Intelligence Agency NCS Officer Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``National 
Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency NCS Officer 
Gregg David Wenzel Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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.

TODD DEWAYNE WILSON Case No: 3:97cr99/RV

USM No: 04505-017

Date of Previous Judgment: March 17, 1999 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 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court 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. 9 GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of months is reduced to .

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

Previous Offense Level: 37 Amended Offense Level: 35

Criminal History Category: II Criminal History Category: II

Previous Guideline Range: 235 to 293 months Amended Guideline Range: 188 to 235 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

9 The reduced sentence is within the 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.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Because the defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum of Life imprisonment, defendant Wilson 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 March 17, 1999 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: June 19, 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-00099-RV Document 354 Filed 06/19/09 Page 1 of 1
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr3041 LAC

DAVID STACEY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 15, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Corrections to Original Motion) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 5/15/08 Doc.# 126

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19

th day of

May, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) Sentence has already been reduced. See Doc 123. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03041-LC-SMN Document 127 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr85/LAC

DWIGHT SPENCER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Lacey A. Collier on: December 24, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: Ex Parte Motion for judicial review to determine finding of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding the warrant for removal 

Filed by Deft pro se on 12/12/2008 Doc.# 153

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 29th day of

December, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) No basis in law. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:97-cr-00085-LC-MD Document 155 Filed 12/29/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.1020 Foreign matter.

Any extraneous substance or material such as straw, strings, rubber bands, grass, weeds, or an excessive amount of dirt or sand. (See Rule 24.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
exv10w37



 



Exhibit 10.37





	 	 	 
	Notice of Grant of Award

	 	LSI LOGIC CORPORATION
	

	 	ID: 94-2712976
	

	 	1621 BARBER LANE
	

	 	MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035








	 	 	 
	OPTIONEE NAME

	 	Award Number: RS000011
	Address

	 	Plan: 2003
	Address

	 	 








Effective _________, you have been
granted an award of ____________shares of LSI LOGIC CORPORATION
common stock. These shares are restricted until the vest date(s) shown below.



The current total value of the award is $____________.



The number of shares indicated are scheduled to become fully vested on the date shown below. However,
vesting will occur only if you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to such date, as described in the
attached LSI LOGIC CORPORATION Restricted Stock Unit Agreement (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms
that are not defined in this Notice of Grant of Award or the Agreement have the same meaning as in the LSI
LOGIC CORPORATION referenced equity incentive plan.



	 	 	 	 	 
	Shares	 	Full Vest	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 











By your signature below, you agree that this award is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions
of the Agreement (and the equity incentive plan referenced therein), which is attached and made a part of this
document. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant of Award, the
Agreement and the LSI LOGIC CORPORATION referenced equity incentive plan, and that you have had an
opportunity to obtain the advice of counsel prior to signing below. You agree to accept as binding, conclusive
and final all decisions or interpretations of the Administrator regarding any questions relating to the LSI LOGIC
CORPORATION referenced equity incentive plan, this Notice of Grant of Award and the Agreement.









	 	 	 
	


	 	

	OPTIONEE NAME

	 	Date
Third Department,

November, 1966 

(November 21, 1966)

#### General Electric Credit Corporation, Appellant, v. John Morrello, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of Special Term, Albany ¡County, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action to recover the unpaid balance due under a retail installment contract. The respondent and Ernest ¡Conti, on May 22, 1962, executed a retail installment contract for the purchase of certain appliances, which contract was assigned by the seller to the plaintiff. After a default on the part of the buyer, the goods were replevied and sold at a public sale, and plaintiff sues for the amount of the deficiency and expenses of the sale. The respondent, in his answer, alleges that he entered into the contract, not as a buyer but only as surety; that any claim against Conti under the contract has been discharged in .bankruptcy; that without his consent, the terms of the contract were changed, thereby canceling the original contract; and that the plaintiff is chargeable ■with prejudicial delay in resorting to its security after default. In his affidavit on the motion, respondent states that he never purchased the items mentioned in the contract; that none of the items were delivered to him, and that he never received or derived any use or benefit from them, and that plaintiff had knowledge of his status as surety. The respondent has sufficiently raised triable issues of fact. Appellant, on the contrary, failed to sustain its burden of factually controverting the defenses predicated on the surety relationship alleged in the answer so as to establish as a matter of law that the *“*defense has no merit”. (CPLR 3212, par. [b].) Order affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Anlisi, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                      MAUNA LOA MACADAMIA PARTNERS, L.P.
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER CLASS A UNIT
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER UNIT DATA)
                                       

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           1997            1996          1995
                                                         --------        -------       -------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>           <C>

Net income                                              $  15,581       $  3,033      $  1,192
                                                         --------        -------       -------
                                                         --------        -------       -------

Class A Unitholders' percentage of ownership                   99%            99%           99%
                                                         --------        -------       -------

Net income allocable to Class A Unitholders             $  15,425       $  3,003      $  1,180
                                                         --------        -------       -------
                                                         --------        -------       -------

Class A Units outstanding                                   7,500          7,500         7,500
                                                         --------        -------       -------
                                                         --------        -------       -------

Net income per Class A Unit                             $    2.06       $   0.40      $   0.16
                                                         --------        -------       -------
                                                         --------        -------       -------

</TABLE>