alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0033n.06
Case No. 14

- 5855
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
CHARLES SCARBOROUGH , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM

. A magistrate judge found Charles Scarborough guilty of threatening and intimidating a forest officer

. See 36 C.F.R. § 261.3(a) (“ Threatening, resisting, intimidating, or interfering with any forest officer engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties in the protection, improvement, or administration of the National Forest System is prohibited .”)

. O n initial appeal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 58 , t he district court
found the evidence sufficient to sustain the colleague conviction and affirmed. Scarborough now

reasserts his sufficiency

- of

- the

- evidenc e challenge before this court. We find that th e district court’s opinion diligently and correctly sets out the undisputed facts and the gove rning law

.

* The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.Case No. 14

- 5855

United States v. Scarborough

- 2

- Scarborough offers only one new argument on appeal

— that intimidation is merely a species of true threat, and because “ the magistrate judge specificall y found that Mr. Scarborough
did not threaten Ms. Hawkins, this Court should find, without more, that the evidence failed to establish that Mr. Scarborough intimidated Ms. Hawkins.” Yet a s the Ninth Circuit noted when faced with a similar challenge , “‘thr eatening, resisting, intimidating, or intentionally interfering’ are stated disjunctively so that proof of any one of the acts alone constitutes an offense.” United
States v. Bucher , 375 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir. 20 04). Scarborough fails to persuade us to depart from our sister circuit’s reasoning that one may intimidat e a f orest officer without necessarily threatening her. See United States v. Hoff , 22 F.3d 222, 22 3

– 2 4 (9 th Cir. 1994) (affirming
conviction where the lower court found that the defendant “ intimidated ” a forest officer “ but did not threaten or assault her”).
Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would be duplicative and serve no jurisprudential purpose, we AFFIRM Scarborough’s conviction on the basis of the district court’s well

- r easoned opinion of June 12, 2014.
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 2 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 3 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 4 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 5 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 6 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 7 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 8 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 9 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 10 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 11 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 12 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 13 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 14 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 15 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 16 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 17 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 18 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 19 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 20 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 21 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 22 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 23 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 24 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 25 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 26 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 27 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 28 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 29 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 30 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 31 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 32 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 33 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 34 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 35 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 36 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 37 of 38
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 1 Filed 08/02/2006 Page 38 of 38
#### COLE, Respondent, v. CLINTON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Norman J. Cole against Henry J. Clinton.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### § 996.11 Negative aflatoxin content.

*Negative aflatoxin content* means 15 parts per billion (ppb) or less for peanuts that have been certified as meeting edible quality grade standards.
1546.704 Authority for use of warranties.       The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the use of a warranty clause in a contract has the concurrence of the Project Officer.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1546.7 - Warranties
Class I area Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days 

Sulfate 

Nitrate 

Organic 

Carbon 

Elemental 

Carbon 

Fine Soil 

Coarse 

Material 

Sea Salt 

Total Light 

Extinction 

Deciview 

Selection of Days 

!<!!rntl•M!t.i$;l•iiJ!8 

Worst 20% IMPROVE 

Scenario 

:::noo~c.:; Bdseline 

,~000-LM Baseline 

~000-!.>~ BaselinE: 

Table Type 

tth!lml!lJ\i\Fi1~&1c-M 

Baseline to 2018 Projections 

~:noo-c.~ fJ.aselln& tolan02di & 2018 PRPcnY-.~ 

:~000-0-4- Bas&!ine & 20 18 

20DC-C4 8a<::e1rne & 

?000-04 Ba:::elme & 

RRF Calculation Method 

Class I Area Summary Table 

Class I Area Visibility Summary: Cape Romain NWRW, SC Class I area 

Visibility Conditions: Best 20% Days 

Reasonable Progress Summary 

2000-04 Baseline Conditions 2005-09 Progress Period 2006-10 Progress Period 2007-11 Progress Period 

(Mm-1) IMm-1) (Mm-1) (Mm-1) 

15.7 18.0 17.3 15.5 

3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 

4.7 4.8 4.8 4.6 

1.7 1.8 1.7 1.5 

0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 

2.9 2.6 2.4 2.4 

22 2.9 2.4 2.5 

42.4 45.4 43.8 41.6 

14.3 15".0 14.6 14.1 

Page 1 of 1 

http:/ /vista.cira.colostate.edu/ dev 1/web/ReasonableProgress/Reas... 12/6/2013 
Class I area Summary Table for Worst Visibility Days 

ih-clp 

Sulfate 

Nitrate 

Organic 

Carbon 

Elemental 

Carbon 

Fine Soil 

Coarse 

Material 

Sea Salt 

Total Light 

Extinction 

Deciview 

Selection of Days 

Best 20% IMPROVE 

llllft.l•lilll!~l;li{•l!J• 

Scenario 

2000-0~ Bastline 

:2000-C--1 8asJ&!in& 

.cOOO·C-1 Basdme 

2000-04 8-a:s&l!ne 

.~000-0) Bass!ins 

?(J00--04 Rascl1ne 

2000-04 Ba"Seline 

RRF Calculation Method 

Table Type 

!ll'!MM;!!IMIQM.jgtjl¥( 

Baseline to 2018 Projections 

& 201 B Bas0 Case 

& 2018 PRPs 

& 2018 PRPb 

& 2018 PRPcnw 

& 2013 

& 2018 PflPb 

Class I Area Summary Table 

Class I Area Visibility Summary: Cape Romain NWRW, SC Class I area 

Visibility Conditions: Worst 20% Days 

Reasonable Progress Summary 

2000-04 Baseline Conditions 2005-09 Progress Period 2006-10 Progress Period 2007-11 Progress Period 

!Mm·l) (Mm-1) (Mm-1) (Mm-1) 

96.5 107.6 85.8 73.1 

5.3 4.2 4.5 4.7 

23.8 15.9 17.0 20.7 

5.7 4.7 4.6 4.5 

0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 

3.2 3.5 3.8 4.2 

02 1.3 1.5 l.7 

147.3 149.9 130.2 121.6 

26.5 26.5 25.2 24.6 

Page 1 of 1 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev1/web/ReasonableProgress/Reas ... 12/6/2013
252.204-7000 Disclosure of Information.       As prescribed in                 204.404-70             (a), use the following clause:          DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION (OCT 2016)          (a)  The Contractor shall not release to anyone outside the Contractor's organization any unclassified information, regardless of medium (e.g., film, tape, document), pertaining to any part of this contract or any program related to this contract, unless—          (1)  The Contracting Officer has given prior written approval;          (2)  The information is otherwise in the public domain before the date of release; or          (3)  The information results from or arises during the performance of a project that involves no covered defense information (as defined in the clause at DFARS                 252.204-7012             ) and has been scoped and negotiated by the contracting activity with the contractor and research performer and determined in writing by the contracting officer to be fundamental research (which by definition cannot involve any covered defense information), in accordance with National Security Decision Directive 189, National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, in effect on the date of contract award and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) memoranda on Fundamental Research, dated May 24, 2010, and on Contracted Fundamental Research, dated June 26, 2008 (available at DFARS PGI                 204.4             ).          (b)  Requests for approval under paragraph (a)(1) shall identify the specific information to be released, the medium to be used, and the purpose for the release.  The Contractor shall submit its request to the Contracting Officer at least 10 business days before the proposed date for release.          (c)  The Contractor agrees to include a similar requirement, including this paragraph (c), in each subcontract under this contract.  Subcontractors shall submit requests for authorization to release through the prime contractor to the Contracting Officer.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 252.204 RESERVED
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Caroline W. Becker, Deceased. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., et al., Appellants; Robert McLaren, Respondent.

— Order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, entered January 30, 1980, affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Acting Surrogate Seidell. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
---

|Exhibit 32.1                                 
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|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 Annual Report of Buckingham Exploration
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 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 Company.

|Dated: August 30, 2007 | /s/
      Robin Relph                                                                                      
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | C. Robin Relph                                                                                             
|                       | Director, President, Chief Executive Officer, 
      Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

B.B., a minor, by and )

Through his mother and next friend, )

OWENA KNOWLES, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.:

) 3:06-CV-00715-MHT

v. )

)

PAWN CITY, INC.; NORINCO )

a/k/a CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES )

COPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

CORPORATE/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

In accordance with the Order of this Court, the undersigned party to the abovecaptioned matter does hereby make the following disclosure concerning parent 

companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, debtors, creditors’ 

committee, or other entities reportable under the provisions of the Middle District of 

Alabama’s General Order No. 3047:

The following entities are hereby reported: 

Hang Zhou Safari Park Co. Ltd.

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 38 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Todd M. Higey

Todd M. Higey

Ala. Bar No. HIG019

Attorney for Qiqihar Hawk 

Industries Co. Ltd.

ADAMS AND REESE LLP

2100 3rd Avenue North, Suite 1100

Birmingham, Alabama 35203-3367

Telephone: (205) 250-5000

Fax: (205) 250-5034

E-mail: todd.higey@arlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 12, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 

to the persons listed below:

David J. Hodge, Esq.

PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C.

2001 Park Place North

1100 Park Place Tower

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

James C. Barton, Jr., Esq.

Alan D. Mathis, Esq.

JOHNSTON, BARTON, PROCTOR & POWELL, LLP

2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Nick Wooten, Esq.

WOOTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.

P.O. Drawer 290

Lafayette, Alabama 36862

John D. Gleissner, Esq.

ROGERS & ASSOCIATES

3000 Riverchase Galleria

Suite 650

Birmingham, Alabama 35244

/s/Todd M. Higey

Of Counsel

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 38 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD )

PRESERVING, INC. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CV: 1:06 cv 708

)

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF ENDORESEMENT

 Pursuant to the ECF Administrative Procedure, counsel for Plaintiff Great

Southern Wood Preserving, Inc., Kenneth A. Dowdy, does hereby certify that my

original signature was placed on the following document which was filed electronically

filed on October 10, 2006:

 1. Report of Parties Planning Meeting

 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth A. Dowdy 

KENNETH A. DOWDY (DOW015)

LESLIE A. CALDWELL (CAL047).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Great Southern 

Wood Preserving, Inc.

Lusk Lusk Dowdy & Caldwell, P.C.

2101 Highland Avenue

Suite 410

Birmingham, AL 35205

(205) 933-7090

(205) 933-7099 (fax)

Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 12 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-CV-736-WKW

)

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND )

SEVEN HUNDRED ($74, 700) )

DOLLARS IN U.S. CURRENCY )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On January, 10, 2007, claimant George Jones filed a Motion to StayProceedings (Doc. # 13),

pending the conclusion of a criminal trial arising out of the same facts and circumstances as the

seizure of funds made subject of the above styled action. On January 8, 2007, the Government filed

a Motion to Continue the Pretrial Conference in this case. (Doc. # 12.) Upon due consideration and

good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 13) is DENIED. 

2. The Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED. The Pretrial

Conference, previously set for May 7, 2007, is continued to September 10, 2007.

3. The trial of this matter is continued to October 15, 2007. 

DONE this the 2nd day of February, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 14 Filed 02/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                   ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
(the "FORM 10-QSB") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of Universal
Detection Technology (the "ISSUER").

      I, Jacques Tizabi, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of Issuer certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge:

      (i)   the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Date: ____________, 2006


/s/Jacques Tizabi
-------------------------------------------
By: Jacques Tizabi
Title: Chief Executive Officer and Acting
       Chief Financial Officer
#### § 981.5 Unshelled almonds.

*Unshelled almonds* means almonds the kernels of which are contained in the shell.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:01-CR-028-SPM

LYNDOM BURL BAKER,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 100) filed May 10, 2006. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. No

objections were filed.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 100) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 4:01-cr-00028-RS-GRJ Document 101 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence (doc. 86) is

hereby denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this thirteenth day of June, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cr-00028-RS-GRJ Document 101 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00447

- CV
EB INTERNATIONAL, LLC, AND HIDALGO LOGISITICS, LLC, D/B/A HIDALGO COLD

STORAGE, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. JENROB INVESTMENTS, LP, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
On Appeal from the 332nd Distric t Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 1857

- 12

- B

- 1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opini on . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 6, 2014
PART 12 –– ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL

ITEMS

 SUBPART 12.4 – UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR

COMMERCIAL ITEMS

 12.403 Termination.

SUBPART 12.4 – UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

12.403 Termination.

(b) Policy. Contracting officers shall coordinate contract/order termination actions with the CoCO,

HCO and legal counsel and, if the contractor is a small business concern, with the Office of Small

Business Programs (OSBP). The HCO and HCA and will be updated in weekly DITCO SITREPs.
EX-10.36



 EXHIBIT 10.36 

SUMMARY OF ATHERSYS, INC. 
 2018
CASH BONUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 On January 4, 2018, the Board of Directors of Athersys, Inc. (the “Company”), based upon the recommendation of
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, approved a cash bonus incentive plan (the “Plan”) for the year ended December 31, 2018 for the named executive officers of the Company. The Plan provides that each
participant is eligible to earn a bonus during the award term of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. The Plan provides for the following target bonus percentages of the named executive officer’s salary during the award term,
weighted as set forth below on the achievement of specified corporate goals, with the remainder based on individual/functional performance. The corporate goals include advancing the Company’s clinical programs for MultiStem, executing against
the established operating plan and capital acquisition objectives, and advancement of strategic partnership and program activities. There is no formally adopted plan document for the Plan. 

 

									
	 Title
	  	Target
Bonus	 	 	Weighting on
Corporate Goals	 
	 Chief Executive Officer
	  	 	60	% 	 	 	100	% 
	 President & Chief Operating Officer
	  	 	45	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Executive Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer
	  	 	45	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Senior Vice President of Finance
	  	 	35	% 	 	 	60	%
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-2 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-3 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-3 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-3 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00643-MHT-SRW Document 38-3 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 4