alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w31



 





Exhibit 10.31




Summary of Director Compensation



      Directors who are not employees of eLoyalty or any of its subsidiaries (“non-employee
directors”) receive $1,500 for their attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors, $2,000
per Audit Committee meeting attended and $500 for each Compensation Committee meeting (each of
which generally is held in tandem with a meeting of the Board of Directors). If any Compensation
Committee meetings are held apart from a Board of Directors meeting, each Compensation Committee
member receives $1,000 per meeting attended. One Director, Jay Hoag, historically has declined to
accept any such compensation for his service as a member of the Board of Directors or the
committees on which he serves. The Company also reimburses directors for their travel-related
expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees.



      In addition to meeting attendance fees, non-employee directors are eligible to receive
automatic grants of stock options under the eLoyalty Corporation 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“1999 plan”). The 1999 plan provides for each non-employee director to receive: (i) an option to
purchase 5,000 shares of eLoyalty Common Stock upon commencement of service as a director (an
“Initial Grant”); and (ii) an option to purchase 5,000 shares of eLoyalty Common Stock on the day
following the date of each annual meeting of eLoyalty stockholders during which such service
continues (an “Annual Grant”). Stock options granted to non-employee directors have an exercise
price per share equal to the fair market value of a share of eLoyalty Common Stock on the grant
date and a maximum term of ten years. Vesting occurs ratably over a period of 48 months from the
end of the month following the grant date with respect to each Initial Grant and over a period of
12 months from the end of the month following the grant date with respect to each Annual Grant.



      Mr. Hoag historically has declined receipt of the Annual Grants that otherwise would have been
awarded to him automatically under the 1999 plan.
.::=,-

Martin, Michael (OSn

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Everyone:

Martin, Michael (OSn

Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:40 PM

Shaun Germolus (shaun@rangeregionalairport.com); mayorjugovich@yahoo.com;

'rcannata@ci.hibbing.mn.us'

Brad Rawson

Essential Air Service at Chisholm/Hibbing

SkyWest proposal - HIB - January 2014.pdf

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Chisholm/Hibbing, and give you an opportunity

to offer any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs. We issued Order 2013-11-24 (November 26,2013), requesting proposals from airlines interested

in providing EASfor a new term. In response to our request, SkyWest, the incumbent, was the only airline to submit a

proposal.

I have attached SkyWest's proposal for your review. I expect the proposal to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov by

noon tomorrow. I request that you review the proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible,

but no later than Friday. January 24. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at

michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on this email.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Michael Martin

United States Department of Transportation

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP)

(202) 366-6494
§ 54.1003 Provider eligibility. ( a ) Except as provided in § 54.1004, an applicant shall be an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier in an area in order to receive Mobility Fund Phase I support for that area. The applicant's designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier may be conditional subject to the receipt of Mobility Fund support.
( b ) An applicant shall have access to spectrum in an area that enables it to satisfy the applicable performance requirements in order to receive Mobility Fund Phase I support for that area. The applicant shall certify, in a form acceptable to the Commission, that it has received any Commission approvals necessary for such access at the time it applies to participate in competitive bidding and at the time that it applies for support and that it will retain such access for five (5) years after the date on which it is authorized to receive support. Pending requests for such approvals are not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
( c ) An applicant shall certify that it is financially and technically qualified to provide the services supported by Mobility Fund Phase I in order to receive such support.
[76 FR 73877, Nov. 29, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 14303, Mar. 9, 2012] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 77 FR 14303, Mar. 9, 2012, § 54.1003(b) was revised. This paragraph contains information and recordkeeping requirements and will not become effective until approval has been given by the Office of Management and Budget.
[No. 2907.]

#### Mark Anderson *v.*The State.

Aggravated Assault—Charge of the Court.—Information charged that the assault was aggravated because made with a deadly weapon, to wit, an axe. The court charged, as requested by the State, that “th0 use of any dangerous weapon, or the semblance thereof, in an angry or threatening manner, with an intent to alarm another, and under circumstances calculated to effect that object, comes within the meaning of an assault. When a dangerous weapon is used under the above mentioned circumstances, the ability to effect injury is not necessary.” *Held,*error, as not applicable to the assault charged, and as an abandonment of the aggravation alleged in the information.

Appeal from the County Court of Caldwell. Tried below before the Hon. Lee Rogan, County Judge.

The information charged the appellant with an aggravated assault upon G. W. Loekard, in Caldwell county, Texas, on the eighteenth day of July, 1883. The ground of aggravation was alleged to be the use of a deadly weapon, to wit, an ax. The appellant’s trial resulted in his conviction, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of thirty-five dollars.

The motion for new trial set up the ground considered in the opinion.

*Stringfellow & McNeal,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault, upon an information charging that the assault was aggravated because made with a *deadly*weapon, to wit, an ax. Ho other ground of aggravation is even hinted at in the information.

At the request of the State, the learned judge presiding gave this charge to the jury: “The use of any dangerous weapon, or the semblance thereof, in an angry or threatening manner, with an intent to alarm another, and under circumstances calculated to effect that object, comes within the meaning of an *133assault. When a dangerous weapon is used under the above mentioned circumstances, the ability to effect injury is not necessary.”

, This charge has no application whatever to the *aggravated assault alleged in the*information„ It is an abandonment of the information altogether, so far as the ground of aggravation is concerned, and this conviction, if the jury were influenced by the charge, was without allegation to support it. The charge being radically wrong, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Opinion delivered May 3, 1884
No. 11-8832.

#### Hayes *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"19-2078: ALBRIGHT v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lq2ntxr1t0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-01-2020-19-2078-albright-v-us-opinion-19-2078-opinion-12-1-2020_1693794\/\">19-2078: ALBRIGHT v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-01-2020-19-2078-albright-v-us-opinion-19-2078-opinion-12-1-2020_1693794\/embed\/#?secret=lq2ntxr1t0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-2078: ALBRIGHT v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"lq2ntxr1t0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: ALBRIGHT v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-2078 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 54.1013 Applicant eligibility. ( a ) An applicant for 5G Fund support shall be an eligible telecommunications carrier in an area in order to receive 5G Fund support for that area. The applicant may obtain its designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier after the close of a 5G Fund auction, provided that the applicant submits proof of its designation within 180 days after the release of the public notice identifying the applicant as a winning bidder. The eligible telecommunications carrier service area of a 5G Fund support recipient will not be required to conform to the service area of the rural telephone company serving the same area. An applicant for 5G Fund support shall not receive such support prior to the submission of proof of its designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier. After such submission, the eligible telecommunications carrier shall receive a balloon payment that will consist of the carrier's monthly 5G Fund support amount multiplied by the number of whole months between the first day of the month after the close of the auction and the issuance of the public notice authorizing the carrier to receive 5G Fund support.
( b ) An applicant must have exclusive access to Commission licensed spectrum and sufficient bandwidth in an area that enables it to satisfy the performance requirements specified in § 54.1015 in order to receive 5G Fund support for that area. The applicant shall describe its access to spectrum as specified in § 54.1014(a)(3) and certify, in a form acceptable to the Commission, that it has such access and sufficient bandwidth (at a minimum, 10 megahertz x 10 megahertz using frequency division duplex (FDD) or 20 megahertz using time division duplex (TDD)) in each area in which it intends to bid for support at the time it applies to participate in competitive bidding, and that it will retain such access for at least ten (10) years after the date on which it is authorized to receive support. A winning bidder that applies for 5G Fund support applicant shall describe its access to spectrum as specified in § 54.1014(b)(2)(v) at the time it applies for support and certify, in a form acceptable to the Commission, that it has such access and sufficient bandwidth (at a minimum, 10 megahertz x 10 megahertz using frequency division duplex (FDD) or 20 megahertz using time division duplex (TDD)) in each area in which it is applying for support, and that it will retain such access for at least ten (10) years after the date on which it is authorized to receive support.
( c ) An applicant shall certify that it is financially and technically qualified to provide the services supported by the 5G Fund within the ten (10) year support term in each geographic area for which it seeks and is authorized to receive support.
No. 11-9269.

#### Honesto *v.*Brown, Governor of California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 10.6**

 

**Amendment to the**

**Toys “R” Us, Inc. Amended and Restated**

**1994 Stock Option and Performance Incentive Plan**

 

The Toys “R” Us, Inc. Amended and Restated 1994 Stock Option and PerformanceIncentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of March 2, 2004, as follows. 

 

1. The last sentence of Section 2.2 of the Plan, which reads as follows: 

 

“Shares of Common Stock (i) withheld by the Company in payment of the exercise price of options or taxes relating to awards, or (ii) surrendered tothe Company in payment of the exercise price of options or taxes relating to awards, will be available for awards under the Plan.” 

 

shall expire as of June 3, 2007, which is the day prior to the tenth anniversary of the date that the Plan was last approved by the stockholders of the Company, and shallthereafter be replaced with the following sentence: 

 

“Shares of Common Stock withheld by the Company in payment of the exercise price of options or in payment of taxes relating to awards (other than Restricted Shares or other awards in which shares of Common Stock have already beenissued to the participant) will be available for subsequent awards under the Plan.” 

 

2. The following proviso shall be added at the end of the penultimate sentence of Section 2.2 of the Plan: 

 

“provided, however, that Restricted Shares or other awards in which shares of Common Stock have already been issued and which are subsequentlyconverted to a cash settlement on or after June 3, 2007 shall not be available for subsequent awards under the Plan.” 

 

3. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment. 

 

The Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first abovewritten.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 1 - 0 199 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 - CE - 0 0 5 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– If this box is checked, no s ignatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the fol lowing changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:
**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### § 54.1517 Transitional support mobile carrier eligibility.

Facilities-based mobile carriers that are recipients of mobile support from Stage 2 as of May 1, 2023 of the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund or the Connect USVI Fund shall be eligible to elect and receive transitional mobile support in the areas where they receive Stage 2 support.

[88 FR 29000, May 5, 2023]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4631 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4631

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations on 
                    the Nueces River Project, Texas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 1994

  Mr. Ortiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into negotiations on 
                    the Nueces River Project, Texas.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the 
``Secretary'') shall enter into and complete negotiations with the City 
of Corpus Christi, Texas, on loan contract numbered 6-07-01-X0675 
pursuant to the Reclamation Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-493) 
regarding the Nueces River Reclamation Project, Texas (hereinafter 
referred to as the ``project'').
    (b) The Secretary shall discount the remaining Federal debt 
obligation based on actual water yield to the City of Corpus Christi 
from the project which is determined to be 88,394 acre feet per year, 
or 57.11 percent of the original estimated incremental yield expected 
from the construction of the project.
    (c) If requested by the City of Corpus Christi, the Secretary shall 
accept pre-payment on the remaining loan contract obligation in the 
amount of $21,031,077.
    (d) Such prepayment under subsection (c) and discount based on 
actual yield under subsection (b) shall result in a total remaining 
cost of the project of $21,031,077, the payment of which shall satisfy 
local sponsor cost obligations of the project.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF TITLE.

    The Secretary may transfer title for the project to local sponsors.

                                 <all>
```
793 A.2d 714

#### RUDOLPH LAIDLOW AND JEAN LAIDLOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. HARITON MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD PORTMAN AND ADVANCED METALLURGY AMI-DDC INC., A DIVISION OF TECHNITROL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

February 25, 2002.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on an appeal as of right pursuant to *Rule*2:2-1(a)(1), and the Court having determined that the matter does not present a substantial constitutional question within the meaning of the *Rule*or applicable caselaw;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 44262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6712]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURE TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, August 11, 2006.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-6712 Filed 8-2-06; 10:33 am]
BILLING CODE 6151-01-M
No. 10-11025.

#### Thompson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
----

            COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 850/2005

of 30 May 2005         

amending Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001 to enable the implementation of Community assistance according to Article 54(2)(c) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 181a(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Regulation (EC) No 2500/2001, the following Article shall be inserted:

‘Article 6a

The Commission may, within the limits established in Article 54 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (*1), decide to entrust tasks of public authority, and in particular budget implementation tasks to the bodies listed in Article 54(2) of that Regulation. The bodies defined in Article 54(2)(c) of that Regulation may be entrusted with tasks of public authority if they are of recognised international standing, comply with internationally recognised systems of management and control, and are supervised by a public authority.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2005.

For the Council

The President

F. BODEN            

----

(1)  Opinion delivered on 28 April 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 375, 23.12.1989, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2257/2004 (OJ L 389, 30.12.2004, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2257/2004.

(5)OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 769/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 1).

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 08, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0021. KATHY COOTS v. STEFANIE WOHLGEMUTH.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 19A04189