alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit A 1 of 1

Exhibit A

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

Summary of Compensation by Professional

For the Period February 1, 2018 through April 30, 2018

Name Type of Work Title Time Hourly Rate 1 Total Individual Fees

Chepenik,Adam Brandon Billable Partner/Principal 249.9 $ 845.00 $ 211,165.50

Chepenik,Adam Brandon Travel 2 Partner/Principal 54.5 $ 422.50 $ 23,026.25

Koch,Cathleen M Billable Partner/Principal 8.4 $ 845.00 $ 7,098.00

Malhotra,Gaurav Billable Partner/Principal 52.5 $ 845.00 $ 44,362.50

Phillips,Andrew D Billable Partner/Principal 2.5 $ 845.00 $ 2,112.50

Auton-Smith,Stephen John Billable Executive Director 4.0 $ 788.00 $ 3,152.00

Hymovitz Cardona,Pablo S Billable Executive Director 30.0 $ 788.00 $ 23,640.00

Mackie,James Billable Executive Director 31.6 $ 788.00 $ 24,900.80

Mullins,Daniel R Billable Executive Director 17.4 $ 788.00 $ 13,711.20

Rodriguez-Ramos,Rosa M. Billable Executive Director 17.8 $ 788.00 $ 14,026.40

Santambrogio,Juan Billable Executive Director 166.5 $ 788.00 $ 131,202.00

Santambrogio,Juan Travel 2 Executive Director 39.0 $ 394.00 $ 15,366.00

Herman,Michael Scott Billable Senior Manager 0.5 $ 701.00 $ 350.50

Porepa,Jodi Billable Senior Manager 108.2 $ 701.00 $ 75,848.20

Porepa,Jodi Travel 2 Senior Manager 16.0 $ 350.50 $ 5,608.00

Whitten III,Robert Holt Billable Senior Manager 1.4 $ 701.00 $ 981.40

Yano,Brian Billable Senior Manager 132.9 $ 701.00 $ 93,162.90

Maldonado,Nelson Billable Manager 11.1 $ 578.00 $ 6,415.80

Mercado-Reyes,Pedro Ivan Billable Manager 5.7 $ 578.00 $ 3,294.60

Maciejewski,Brigid Jean Billable Manager 0.4 $ 578.00 $ 231.20

Outlaw,Jessica R. Billable Manager 129.9 $ 578.00 $ 75,082.20

Outlaw,Jessica R. Travel 2 Manager 23.4 $ 289.00 $ 6,762.60

Pavlenco,Robert J Billable Manager 1.6 $ 578.00 $ 924.80

Panagiotakis,Sofia Billable Manager 177.6 $ 578.00 $ 102,652.80

Panagiotakis,Sofia Travel 2 Manager 16.0 $ 289.00 $ 4,624.00

Santiago,Karol I. Billable Manager 3.5 $ 578.00 $ 2,023.00

Burr,Jeremy Billable Senior 244.1 $ 430.00 $ 104,963.00

Burr,Jeremy Travel 2 Senior 25.3 $ 215.00 $ 5,439.50

Hurtado,Sergio Billable Senior 7.1 $ 430.00 $ 3,053.00

Loh,Carmen Chng Wen Billable Senior 156.0 $ 430.00 $ 67,080.00

Loh,Carmen Chng Wen Travel 2 Senior 72.0 $ 215.00 $ 15,480.00

Suarez Archilla,Noeliz Billable Senior 1.5 $ 430.00 $ 645.00

Aldana Herbas,Jose Alberto Billable Staff 105.0 $ 236.00 $ 24,780.00

Aldana Herbas,Jose Alberto Travel 2 Staff 8.0 $ 118.00 $ 944.00

Neziroski,David Billable Staff 0.6 $ 236.00 $ 141.60

Total 1921.9 $ 1,114,251.25

2

 Travel fees are billed out at 50% bill rate

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3532-1 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 14:28:51 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  EXHIBIT 10.1    
    


 HELICOS BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION  


 First Amendment  


 Amended and Restated Management Incentive Bonus Plan  



A.    The
Helicos BioSciences Corporation Amended and Restated Management Incentive Bonus Plan (the "Incentive Plan"), is amended by: 



1.    Inserting the following sentence at the end of Section 1: 


        "Payments
made under the Incentive Plan may be made in cash or in unrestricted shares of the Company's common stock, $.001 par value ("Common Stock"), under
any of the Company's equity incentive plans." 


2.    Deleting the "and" at the end of the fifth bullet point clause in Section 3 under the heading "Compensation
Committee Responsibilities:". 


3.    Inserting the following new bullet point clause at the end of Section 3 under the heading "Compensation
Committee Responsibilities:": 



"    •    Determine
whether any bonus award or portion thereof shall be payable in cash or shares of Common Stock." 




4.    Inserting a new Section 4(f): 


        "(f)    If
the Compensation Committee elects to pay any bonus award or portion thereof in the form of Common Stock, the number of shares of Common Stock to be paid to such
Covered Executive shall be equal to the bonus award to which such Covered Executive is entitled under the Incentive Plan divided by the reported closing price of the Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global
Market (or the public market on which the Common Stock then trades) on the date such bonus award is determined, or the preceding trading date if there are no market quotations on such date." 




B.    This
Amendment shall be effective as of September 8, 2009. 


C.    Except
as amended herein, the Amended and Restated Management Incentive Bonus Plan is confirmed in all other respects. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.1
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.29 Charter contract.

The charter contract between the charter operator or foreign charter operator and the direct air carrier shall evidence a binding commitment on the part of the carrier to furnish the air transportation required for the trip or trips covered by the contract.
#### JOHNSON v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. CJAP No. 89-91

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County

October 3, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Eric R. Eide, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Paula C. Coffman, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.

Before WALTER KOMANSKI, Circuit Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Appellant challenges the propriety of the trial court’s determination that he violated probation imposed upon the Appellant’s conviction for the offense of driving while license suspended. The affidavit of the Appellant’s probation officer alleged violations of standard conditions of probation numbers 1, 2, 7 and 9, as well as a special condition of probation pertaining to a fine and court costs.

After reviewing the Record on Appeal and the appellate briefs filed in the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court’s revocation of the Appellant’s probation is supported by competent, substantial evidence that the Appellant violated the special condition of probation *35and standard conditions 2 and 9.1 Therefore, the Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence are AFFIRMED.

DATE OF DECISION OCTOBER 3, 1991.

1

 The trial court’s determination that the Appellant violated standard condition 1 requiring that the Appellant procure the consent of his probation officer prior to changing his residence is erroneous, inasmuch as the Appellant had no control over his whereabouts while incarcerated.
**Exhibit23**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors

Seacoast FinancialServices Corporation:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-74173,333-74175 and 333-86075) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement on Form S-3(No. 333-90989) of Seacoast Financial Services Corporation of our report datedJanuary 21, 2003, except as to Note 10, which is as of March 6, 2003, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheet of Seacoast Financial Services Corporationand subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows forthe year ended December 31, 2002 which report appears in the December 31, 2002,annual report on Form 10-K of Seacoast Financial Services Corporation.  Our report refers to the adoption ofStatement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 142, “Goodwill andOther Intangible Assets.”

 
|                  | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|-----------------------|--------------|
|                  |
| Boston, Massachusetts |
| March 27, 2003        |

 

----
SCPR-12-0001122 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE BURGESS A. DELL-WILSON, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Burgess A. DellWilson’s petition to resign and surrender her license to practice

law in the State of Hawai#i, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and of

the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted nunc

pro tunc to December 31, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), 

that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Burgess A. Dell-Wilson, attorney number 5300,

from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective

with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 9, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-12-0001122

09-JAN-2013

08:32 AM
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 ImageX, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gina M. Meyers, Vice
President of Finance and Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 Company.


                          By /s/ Gina M. Meyers
                             ------------------
                             Gina M. Meyers
                             Vice President of Finance and Corporate Controller
Exhibit 32.1


                   CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO SECTION 906
                   OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  Meridian  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on  Form  10-QSB/A  for the period  ending  June 30,  2004  as  filed
with   the   Securities   and   Exchange   Commission   on    the   date  hereof
(the "Report"),   we,  Anthony  C.  Dike, the  Chief  Executive Officer, of  the
Company,  certify,  pursuant   to   18 U.S.C.   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 Company.

A signed  original  of this written  statement  required  by Section 906,
or other  document  authenticating,  acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
this  written  statement  required by Section 906, has  been  provided to
Meridian Holdings, Inc., and  will  be retained  by   Meridian  Holdings,
Inc.,  and furnished to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.


DATE:  February 25,   2005        By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        Chairman  and  CEO
#### In the Matter of Morris Rosentover, Respondent, against J. J. Weiss et al., Appellants.

(Argued October 1, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*558
      *Jacob W. Friedman, Joseph J. Weiss*and *A. L. Weiss*for appellants.

*Monroe J. Weinstein*and *Sidney Zasuly*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 25.901 Installation. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 68734 , Aug. 27, 2024.
( a ) For the purpose of this part, the airplane powerplant installation includes each component that— ( 1 ) Is necessary for propulsion;
( 2 ) Affects the control of the major propulsive units; or
( 3 ) Affects the safety of the major propulsive units between normal inspections or overhauls.
( b ) For each powerplant— ( 1 ) The installation must comply with— ( i ) The installation instructions provided under §§ 33.5 and 35.3 of this chapter; and
( ii ) The applicable provisions of this subpart;
( 2 ) The components of the installation must be constructed, arranged, and installed so as to ensure their continued safe operation between normal inspections or overhauls;
( 3 ) The installation must be accessible for necessary inspections and maintenance; and
( 4 ) The major components of the installation must be electrically bonded to the other parts of the airplane.
( c ) For each powerplant and auxiliary power unit installation, it must be established that no single failure or malfunction or probable combination of failures will jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane except that the failure of structural elements need not be considered if the probability of such failure is extremely remote.
( d ) Each auxiliary power unit installation must meet the applicable provisions of this subpart.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5676, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-40, 42 FR 15042, Mar. 17, 1977; Amdt. 25-46, 43 FR 50597, Oct. 30, 1978; Amdt. 25-126, 73 FR 63345, Oct. 24, 2008]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00530-CR

Abelardo G. GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CRR000662-D1

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2015

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 

Appellant Abelardo Gerardo Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal on August 10, 2015, stating he 

is appealing the denial of his post-judgment motion to recuse in cause numbers 2008-CRR-657, 2008-

CRR-662, and 2008-CRR-665. The judgments of conviction in the clerk’s records, as well as the copies 

of those judgments that Gonzalez provided to the court, show the trial court imposed Gonzalez’s 

sentences in those causes on January 15, 2010. 

On September 18, 2015, we ordered Gonzalez to show why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In our order, we noted that “[j]urisdiction must be expressly given 
04-15-00530-CR

- 2 -

to the courts of appeals in a statute,” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), and

“the standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether 

the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 

Gonzalez responded stating (1) he has been unable to review the clerk’s records and therefore 

cannot know what is wrong with or missing from them; (2) he intends to appeal the trial court’s 

denial of his post-trial second motion to recuse, which is not an interlocutory order; and (3) he has 

exercised due diligence in appealing the trial court’s order.

In this case, our jurisdiction depends not upon what is missing from the clerk’s record, but 

upon on Gonzalez’s notice of appeal and the judgments of conviction. We are unaware of any 

statute, and Gonzalez does not cite a statute, granting us jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s appeal. The 

trial court imposed Gonzalez’s sentences on January 15, 2010, and Gonzalez’s August 10, 2015 

notice of appeal expressly challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to recuse. Without a 

statute authorizing this appeal, the order denying a motion to recuse is not appealable and we lack 

jurisdiction even if Gonzalez exercised due diligence in filing this appeal. See Ragston, 424 S.W.3d 

at 52; Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 696-97. Gonzalez has not cited any authority and we are aware of none 

authorizing this appeal. 

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
§ 1271.205 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 1271.100(a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or an extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( c ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( d ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.5

                                 LOAN AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made by and between Kid Castle Enterprises Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "Lender") and Kid Castle Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Borrower") with the guarantor(s), for the necessary fund lending
during the process of business dealings performed by both parties. The Agreement
is established under mutual agreement, with the terms and conditions specified
as follows:

Amount of Loan: THIRTY-FIVE MILLION New Taiwan Dollars.

Valid Loan Period: From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003. The loan will be
issued upon approval of the certificate of indebtedness or notes presented by
the Borrower.

1.   The loan interest will be calculated according to the actual loan amount
     and a fixed interest rate for the period. The annual interest rate is 6%.

2.   Upon the due date for each loan taken, the Borrower and the guarantor(s)
     must pay off the loan immediately. Under conditions of an overdue, the
     interest for the entire loan amount will be re-calculated according to the
     overdue interest rate, an annual interest rate of 10%.

3.   For all debts incurred under the Agreement, the Borrower and the
     guarantor(s) both agree to accept the obligation for loan payment. The
     obligation cannot be advocated for exemption with the supply of application
     documents, certificate of indebtedness, notes or any other documentation
     not signed or sealed by the guarantor(s).

4.   The interest accountable with the certificate of indebtedness should be
     paid in lump sum with the payment for the principal.

5.   Upon the involvement of this Agreement in a lawsuit, the Borrower and the
     Guarantors agrees to use the court at the location of the Lender as the
     court of first instance.

Lender     : Kid Castle Internet Technology Corporation (sealed)
Address    : 8th Floor, No. 98, Mingchuan Road, Hsintien City, Taipei

Borrower   : Kid Castle Corporation (sealed)
Address    : 8th Floor, No. 98, Mingchuan Road, Hsintien City, Taipei

Date: January 1, 2002
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof aQuantive, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, Brian P. McAndrews,the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: May 14, 2003 

 

/s/    BRIAN P. MCANDREWS          

                                                                   

Brian P. McAndrews 

Chief Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Global Crossing
Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Legere, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    John J. Legere  
|John J. Legere         
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 23, 2011
#### § 372.32 Effective period.

Each operating authorization shall be effective upon the date specified therein, and shall continue in effect, unless sooner suspended or revoked, during such period as the authority provided by this part shall remain in effect, or if issued for a limited period of time, shall continue in effect until the expiration thereof unless sooner suspended or revoked.