alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w13



 





Exhibit 10.13




Amendment to




American Reprographics Company

2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan



Effective September 29, 2006, the American Reprographics Company 2005 Employee Stock

 Purchase Plan,
as adopted on January 10, 2005 by the Board of Directors of American

 Reprographics Company, is
amended by restating section 7(c) thereof to read as follows:





	 	 	 	(c)        In connection with each Offering made under the Plan, the Board may specify a maximum
number of shares of Common Stock that may be purchased by any Participant on any Purchase
Date during such Offering. In connection with each Offering made under the Plan, the Board
may specify a maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be purchased by
all Participants pursuant to such Offering. In addition, in connection with each Offering
that contains more than one Purchase Date, the Board may specify a maximum aggregate number
of shares of Common Stock that may be purchased by all Participants on any Purchase Date
under the Offering. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, during any calendar year, no
Participant may purchase under this Plan in excess of the lesser of (i) 400 shares of Common
Stock, or (ii) a number of shares of Common Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value
(determined on the date of the purchase(s)) of $25,000.

















 





Amendment to




American Reprographics Company

2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan

Offering Document



Effective September 29, 2006, the offering document for the American Reprographics



Company 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as adopted on January 10, 2005 and



amended and restated on December 20, 2005, by the Board of Directors of American



Reprographics Company, is amended by restating section 3(d) thereof to read as follows:





(d) The maximum aggregate number of shares of Common Stock available to be purchased by all
Participants on a Purchase Date will be the number of shares of Common Stock then remaining
available under the Plan. If the aggregate purchase of shares of Common Stock upon
exercise of Purchase Rights granted under the Offering would exceed the maximum aggregate
number of shares available, the Board shall make a pro rata allocation of the shares
available in a uniform and equitable manner. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary,
during any calendar year, no Participant may purchase under this Plan in excess of the
lesser of (i) 400 shares of Common Stock, or (ii) a number of shares of Common Stock having
an aggregate Fair Market Value (determined on the date of the purchase(s)) of $25,000.
-Ry 

## PICK-UPDATE : 3/8/200 7 BO X 

## 10 O F 

## 10 Ste p 2 : FO R ASR C INTERNA L US E ONL Y (PARTA o

fB)



## EP ADOCKE TID : 102RQ-R N 1 ) INDE X 3 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 2 5 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 4 7 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 6 9 ) 102RQ-RN-3- 1 11 ) 102RQ-RN-3- 3 13) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 2 15 ) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 4 17) 102RQ-RN-2-2- 1 19 ) 102RQ-RN-2-3- 1 21 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 2 23 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 4 25 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 6 27X02RQ-RN-2-4- 8 ^ > 29 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4-1 0 31 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 2 33 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 4 35 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 6 37 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 8 39 ) 102RQ-RN-5- 1 Ste p 3 : FOR ASR C INTERNA L US E ONL Y CD : OA : / 

## 2 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 1 4 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 3 6 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 5 8 ) 102RQ-RN-1- 7 10 ) 102RQ-RN-3- 2 12 ) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 1 14) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 3 16 ) 102RQ-RN-2-1- 5 18 ) 102RQ-RN-2-2- 2 20 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 1 22 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 3 24 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 5 26 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 7 28 ) 102RQ-RN-2-4- 9 30 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 1 32 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 3 34 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 5 36 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 7 38 ) 102RQ-RN-4- 9 40 ) 102RQ-RN-5- 2 

# »/43 \ Ste p 1 : FOR ASR

C INTERNA L US E ONL Y Ar e ther e more documents fo rthi s Docke t i n anothe rbox ? /*YE S V N O *Fil l ou t Continuatio n Shee t an d go t o Ste p 2 X_^X Interna l SFUN D Bo

xNumbe r3 5 O F 28 3 Initials/Date : LDS_/_3-8-2007
_P 2 

## /o?/e<p.-ie#- -z-v-s F.tCOr. D O F CO...V.JNICATIO N TO : 

### %L'fa <U>roj SJbJtC T (^>«DN

_CAL L [jtulC^SHO KQ f,t l-OTRIi » QCONF-.RE.NC E QOTME PIS'ECIFY ) (F.t:tr rt/ f ne rcl-c:»r . «_,t>»t

) DAT E 

## V//D/f

e :»-- t \_ ? • ' 2nSXp A i X AZ-ro r rmcxtionO f

eOv0uuy,Vr

m/ /'S*

- o f YQ^tiOrAM^fcMc, in) )0C^ * Pfl-t T "2 0


## " '•

- (Vd7-V^) "^tr-—b L VJ_kkS » O

F C _>_<»-U

KI LA T ID * 

# ? ue<^c<sf

XtX (V &KD I l\)R.C 'h ui ti/r,AOm+0&<MIio nvuct idu, &Q J9cQ-<3hm*ri' 

### U^nci'UL SoivvQju & r



### Ut, Jist J^arfiooiicaS/ctecJ

LX> ***- W^^ p4A)pO<xJrzui*Siorr,s iz> lO-Cf*- MiO
. >w. n)t,\M*s, SCU^ V %oJ
- V^-SpOKi_

_ ou.'VhXQob 6oJ<u O u>/> o LAJOO imuo)iieo( ov He M^i^o^o^f~ & ^ ^ fyiopo^JicI

reuivS/*0/77 & -ho io C£«

_fW

- 2.0v*yhuQyHf'Icwneytf HJ\&r ^ o SOUAAXL -hr ifa Jfe-h jrro Myfumcli-p <& yoo^IC ^ PuJbXx^oOiornJ^O. ^^I^JWiS jfaMto eytyjCuntc/ Wof nnfiu, mxuc/'CUo QAO J fetid ^y^ffie^d'/S 

### 3 o Wa r ^atf'tAtnv > ^UM 

### ^ Wttveil U*x J\ree^d- Slab*) % "Wife (Vbo Sou#

Mc^~ #l£> Co/co/o^b ^ o^-uftSf **> ^^^
W^le£/fe OhO ^^horkwf #W
- *>''*» ^f^. *&&'* . 

# *%**>. * wa^ a^^i^cc^ •» * *a ^ "» ^^ . ^ 

# ^ruAvtim P

# ut,/^yv& /



# At¥TMX^- 

# m



# 1 \XXi

}-.:•" 

### J%

INFORMATIO N COPIE S 

### ro.y , ?V4^ c OJU**A^C^ V 

### Jrl*Y.<^?(kJl<h$0^d

•XCP' ^ l t

### ttITJ* T»<—i1J3I 4 (7.72 ) "t»L*c n(.»_ . H . re*** »>e_» i KHIC - MA T » C u»tt > UNTI L »upi>t T 1 1 U«AUIUO ,
EXHIBIT 10.2

                          OTHER ARRANGEMENTS


LIFE INSURANCE POLICY

     In the third quarter of 2001, the Company's Board of Directors
(the "Board") directed the transfer to the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer (the "CCEO") of a life insurance policy on his
life with a cash value of approximately $251,000. This policy and life
insurance policies for another executive had been issued prior to the
Company's going public in 1989. In connection with its determination
that the policy should be transferred to the CCEO, the Board
considered historical information and other relevant matters relating
to the policy, including the fact that several life insurance policies
on the other executives life had previously been transferred to that
executive. It is anticipated that the cash value of the life insurance
policy will be considered compensation to the CCEO for tax purposes.


EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT

     In the third quarter of 2001, the CCEO submitted statements to
the Company for reimbursement of certain expenditures made by the CCEO
on behalf of the Company in the current year and prior years for which
the CCEO had not previously been reimbursed. In August 2001, the
Company reimbursed the CCEO approximately $204,000 in connection with
such statements. It is anticipated that a substantial portion of such
amount will be considered compensation to the CCEO for tax purposes.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134100 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134100 

 COA: 264703 

Macomb CC: 2004-000439-FC 

SAMER FAWAZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0830 

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 10, 2007 

 Clerk
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 519945 

________________________________

In the Matter of JONATHAN 

RUSSO, 

Petitioner, 

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting 

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 5, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Jonathan Russo, New York City, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was

found guilty of assaulting staff, refusing a direct order,

violent conduct, interfering with an employee and refusing a

frisk procedure. According to the misbehavior report, petitioner

was ordered to assume a pat-frisk position on the wall and, when

a correction officer asked if he had something in his mouth,

petitioner turned and punched the correction officer in the face. 

The determination of guilt was affirmed upon administrative

appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.
-2- 519945 

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, together with

various reports and corroborating testimony from other correction

officers, provide substantial evidence to support the

determination of guilt (see Matter of Sital v Fischer, 73 AD3d

1348, 1348 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]). Petitioner's

remaining contentions, including that the Hearing Officer should

have assessed his mental health status, are raised for the first

time "and this Court 'ha[s] no discretionary authority or

interest of justice jurisdiction' to review unpreserved issues in

such special proceedings" (Matter of Reed v Artus, 39 AD3d 1056,

1057 [2007], quoting Matter of Khan v New York State Dept. of

Health, 96 NY2d 879, 880 [2001]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
SERVED JULY 26, 2012 ., ..... 

···n . •!\ •. f··yl··~ " 11 ;-P· r·~·r I' "'" l•· . ~ ... : r\ 1 hr t+ .. ¥ \,.~I 

., ... '" ... ')IDTA'l'l()'~! i/\f\J~JIJt 1 /, 1 h 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION',.,;<[f OPEfiATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRAILLE BATTERY, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

· (Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0781 

I I 

·~ 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case.No. 2011S0700298) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other.communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
-~":c'>i'" -

SERVICE LIST~ BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue; S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI 0001 

Charles Fletcher, Respondent's Counsel 

Gray-Robinson, P.A. 

201 N. Franklin St., Suite 2200 

Tampa, FL 33602 

TEL: 813-273-5000 

FAX: 813-273-5145 

Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA. 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

ONE COPY 

, The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S; Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

.FDMS No. FAA-2012-0781 

(Civil Penalty Actipn) 

.. 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

A vinticm Adminislration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Builditig-suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-

-----------------
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") of Community National
Bancorporation (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned officers of the of the
Registrant hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations
      of the Registrant.

Date:  May 14, 2004                  By:  /s/Theron G. Reed
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Theron G. Reed
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                     By:  /s/W. Paul Gephart
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          W. Paul Gephart
                                          Chief Financial Officer
39565.

#### WHITE et al. v. OWENS et al.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. On the previous appearance in this court of this litigation it was held that a husband who furnishes a family purpose automobile to his wife will be liable to one riding with her who was injured as the result of her negligent operation of the automobile whether the degree of care owed by her to the passenger be merely slight care, as in the ease where the one injured is a guest, or whether the degree of care is ordinary, as in those cases where the passenger is riding under a share-the-expense agreement. *Owens v. White,*103 Ga. App. 459, 460 (119 SE2d 581). No motion for rehearing or petition for certiorari having been filed excepting to that ruling, it is the law of this case and this court will not now entertain a motion to overrule that deci*280sion. Special grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the motion for a new trial attempt in various ways to assign error on the failure of the court to charge principles of law contrary to that ruling, and also assign error on portions of the charge as given which conform to that ruling. Those assignments of error are without merit. *Palmer v.*Jackson, 188 Ga. 336, 338 (4 SE2d 28); *Rackley v. Miller,*200 Ga. 717, 728 (38 SE2d 404); *Jackson v. Jackson,*209 Ga. 85, 88 (70 SE2d 592).

Decided June 22, 1962

Rehearing denied July 9, 1962.

*Paul W. Painter, Cook >& Palmour, A. Cecil Palmour,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Langford ■& Stolz, G. W. Langford, Frank M. Gleason,*contra.

2. The two remaining special grounds and the general grounds of the motion for a new trial require for a consideration of the issues presented thereby a consideration of the evidence in the case. The evidence as transmitted to this court is in stenographic form and comprises some 168 pages of the record. On more than 60 of those pages appear some 57 or 58 separate statements of objections to evidence, rulings by the court, and colloquies between the court and counsel, none of which is material to a consideration of the evidence in this case. Under repeated rulings of this court, such a transcript is not in a condition which can be considered by the court, and assignments of error which require reference to the evidence will not be passed upon. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court overruling the other grounds of the motion for a new trial will be affirmed. *Reese v. Wilder,*94 Ga. App. 49 (93 SE2d 416); *Harwell v. People’s Loan &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 100 (3) (112 SE2d 800).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 36 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 36

  Concerning the 3000th anniversary of King David's establishment of 
            Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish kingdom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 1995

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Concerning the 3000th anniversary of King David's establishment of 
            Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish kingdom.

Whereas 1996 is the trimillennial anniversary of King David's conquest of the 
        city of Jerusalem and establishment of the city as the capital of the 
        Jewish kingdom;
Whereas since this time Jerusalem has been the spiritual, cultural, and historic 
        focal point of Jewish devotion;
Whereas during this anniversary world jewry will celebrate, commemorate, and 
        sponsor educational activities about the holy city in Jerusalem;
Whereas Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel since Israel's 
        independence was declared in 1948;
Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of 
        all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access 
        to holy sites in their historical and religious capital;
Whereas in 1967 Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day 
        War;
Whereas in 1990 the United States Senate and House of Representatives 
        overwhelmingly adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 and House 
        Concurrent Resolution 290 declaring that Jerusalem, the capital of 
        Israel, ``must remain an undivided city'';
Whereas in 1996 the Jerusalem 3000 celebrations begin as negotiations on the 
        future status of Jerusalem, as called for in the Declaration of 
        Principles signed by the Palestinians and Israelis on September 13, 
        1993, also begin; and
Whereas Jerusalem is and will remain the eternal capital of the State of Israel: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people 
        of Israel on the 3000th anniversary of King David's conquest of 
        Jerusalem and its subsequent establishment as the capital of 
        the Jewish kingdom;
            (2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an 
        undivided city and the eternal capital of the State of Israel; 
        and
            (3) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to 
        issue an unequivocal statement in support of paragraphs (1) and 
        (2).
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters IAFF Local 93 v. Cleveland Dept. of Law, 2020-Ohio-4906.]

{¶1} On August 11, 2020, a special master issued a report and recommendation 

(R&R) in this public-records case. The special master recommends that the court (1) 

find that the requester’s request was, in part, ambiguous “and/or” a request for a 

comprehensive record that did not exist, (2) find that a claim for production of public 

records that were reasonably identified has been rendered moot, and (3) assess court 

costs equally between the parties. (R&R, 6.) 

{¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the R&R, as permitted by 

R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a 

special master’s report and recommendation, then this court is required to “promptly 

issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that 

there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and 

recommendation.” 

{¶3} Upon review, the court determines that there is no error of law or other 

defect evident on the face of the R&R of August 11, 2020. The court adopts the special 

master’s R&R, including the special master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations contained in the R&R. Judgment is in favor of respondent. Court 

costs are assessed equally against the parties in accordance with the special master’s 

recommendation. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its 

date of entry upon the journal. 

ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND FIRE 

FIGHTERS IAFF LOCAL 93 

 Requester 

 v. 

CITY OF CLEVELAND, DEPARTMENT 

OF LAW 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2020-00037PQ 

Judge Patrick M. McGrath 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2020-00037PQ -2- ENTRY 

 

 PATRICK M. MCGRATH 

 Judge 

Filed August 31, 2020 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/12/20
#### Terry J. STALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave COOK, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-35443.

D.C. No. CV-99-06003-TC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002 *.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*905MEMORANDUM **

Terry J. Staley, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.

Because Staley’s evidence demonstrates, at best, a disagreement regarding proper medical treatment for his back and thyroid conditions, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Staley leave to amend his complaint after discovery had been closed and defendant had filed its motion for summary judgment. *See Roberts v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents,*661 F.2d 796, 798 (9th Cir.1981).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.