alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2006 Senior Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.44 
 WILLIAM LYON HOMES 
 2006 SENIOR EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN 
  

											
	BONUS PLAN
PARTICIPANT	 	% DEFERRED	 	DEFERRAL
CRITERIA	 	PAYMENT CRITERIA	 	DESCRIPTION	 	PAY DATE
	 CEO AND
COO
	 	25%	 	75% paid Year 1 25% paid Year 2 forfeited if terminated – except retirement, disability or death	 	3% of Company’s pre-tax, pre-bonus income each	 	 Based on:
  
 •     Management Level
  
 •     Position Impact w/
WLS
  
 •     Competitive Pay Levels
  
 •     Short-Term Compensation Target for the Position
  
 •     Current Salary
  
 •     Individual
Performance
	 	After year-end Audit
	 EVP
	 	25%	 	75% paid Year 1 25% paid Year 2 forfeited if terminated – except retirement, disability or death	 	3% of the Northern California Region’s pre-tax, pre-bonus income after corporate allocation and  3/4 of 1% of the Company’s pre-tax, pre-bonus income (excluding the Northern California Region)	 	 Based on:
  
 •     Management Level
  
 •     Position Impact w/
WLS
  
 •     Competitive Pay Levels
  
 •     Short-Term Compensation Target for the Position
  
 •     Current Salary
  
 •     Individual
Performance
	 	After year-end Audit
	 CFO
	 	25%	 	75% paid Year 1 25% paid Year 2 forfeited if terminated – except retirement, disability or death	 	0.5% of the Company’s pre-tax, pre-bonus income	 	 Based on:
  
 •     Management Level
  
 •     Position Impact w/
WLS
  
 •     Competitive Pay Levels
  
 •     Short-Term Compensation Target for the Position
  
 •     Current Salary
  
 •     Individual
Performance
	 	After year-end Audit
	 REGION
 PRESIDENTS
	 	25%	 	75% paid Year 1 25% paid Year 2 forfeited if terminated – except retirement, disability or death	 	 3% of Region’s pre-tax, pre-bonus Income after Corporate allocation
  
 minimum payment equal to 100% of annual salary
	 	 Based on:
  
 •     Management Level
  
 •     Position Impact w/
WLS
  
 •     Competitive Pay Levels
  
 •     Short-Term Compensation Target for the Position
  
 •     Current Salary
  
 •     Individual
Performance
	 	After year-end Audit

 Note: 
  

	 	•	 	 Plan requires the employee to be actively employed on the date bonus checks are distributed to qualify for payment except in event of death, disability or
retirement. 


  

	 	•	 	 Awards to be administered (including no discretion to increase) in order to comply with Section 162(m), if applicable. 


  

	 	•	 	 The Compensation Committee retains the discretion to increase the bonus of a participant in the event of an extraordinary performance, or decrease it in the case of
a substandard performance, and may make this determination on the basis of objective or subjective criteria, including, but not limited to, the pay levels of executives at other major homebuilders.
No. 11-283.

#### Fox *v.*Wardy et al.

Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist. Certiorari denied.
c47355_ex10-11.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing






Exhibit 10.11

March 1, 2007


Mr. James Lonergan 

c/o TheStreet.com, Inc. 

14 Wall Street 

15th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 


  
    Re:     Employment Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2003 (the “Employment Agreement”), between you and TheStreet.com, Inc., (the “Company”), as renewed and amended March 14, 2006.




Dear Jim: 


        Reference is made to your renewed and amended Employment Agreement, which expires on February 28, 2007. We wish to renew the Term of the Employment Agreement for one (1) year at an increase of $10,000 to your current Annual
Salary. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 


        In consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual agreements of the parties herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

	 	
1.	
The Term of the Employment Agreement is hereby renewed, and shall expire on February 28, 2008.	
	 
	 	
2.	
The Annual Salary payable to you under the Employment Agreement shall be $285,000, which is an increase of $10,000 per annum from your 2006 Annual Salary, as set by the CEO and the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company, subject to review and increase during the Term in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement.	
	 
	 	
3.	
By deleting the current sub-section 2(b) and replacing it with the following:	
	 



  
    
               (b) Bonus. Except as set forth in Section 4 hereof, in addition to the Annual Salary, Lonergan shall be entitled to receive additional cash bonus compensation for his
        employment during calendar year 2007 (the “Annual

  













  
    
      Bonus”).  The Annual Bonus shall be discretionary in nature, based upon achievement of pre-established performance goals, as approved by the Committee with meaningful input on all goals from the Chief Executive Officer.
      

  



	 	
4.	
Except as expressly modified, amended or supplemented by this letter agreement, all other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement
shall remain and continue unmodified in full force and effect.	
	 



        If the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding, kindly sign this letter in the space provided below. 

	 	
Best regards, 		 
	 	 	 

		 
	 	
THESTREET.COM, INC. 		 
	 	 	 

		 
	 	 	 

		 
	 	 	 

		 
	 	By:	
 /s/ Thomas J. Clarke, Jr 
		 
	 	 	   Thomas J. Clarke, Jr. 
		 
	 	 	   Chief Executive Officer 
		 




 

AGREED & ACCEPTED:

 


/s/ James K. Lonergan 

James K. Lonergan
#### § 90.375 RSU license areas, communication zones and registrations

(a) Roadside Units (RSUs) in the 5895-5925 MHz band are licensed on the basis of non-exclusive geographic areas. Governmental applicants will be issued a geographic area license based on the geo-political area encompassing the legal jurisdiction of the entity. All other applicants will be issued a geographic area license for their proposed area of operation based on county(s), state(s) or nationwide.

(b) Applicants who are approved in accordance with FCC Form 601 will be granted non-exclusive licenses for all non-reserved DSRCS frequencies (see [§ 90.377](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-90.377)). Such licenses serve as a prerequisite of registering individual RSUs located within the licensed geographic area described in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-90.375#p-90.375(a)) of this section. Licensees must register each RSU in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) before operating such RSU. RSU registrations are subject, inter alia, to the requirements of [§ 1.923 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.923) as applicable (antenna structure registration, environmental concerns, international coordination, and quiet zones). Additionally, RSUs at locations subject to NTIA coordination (see [§ 90.371(b)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-90.371#p-90.371(b))) may not begin operation until NTIA approval is received. Registrations are not effective until the Commission posts them on the ULS. It is the DSRCS licensee's responsibility to delete from the registration database any RSUs that have been discontinued.

(c) Licensees must operate each RSU in accordance with the Commission's rules and the registration data posted on the ULS for such RSU. Licensees must register each RSU for the smallest communication zone needed for the intelligent transportation systems application using one of the following four communication zones:

Table 1 to [§ 90.375](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-90.375)(c)—Communication Zones

| RSU class | Maximum output power (dBm)1 | Communications zone (meters) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 0 | 15 |
| B | 10 | 100 |
| C | 20 | 400 |
| D | 28.8 | 1000 |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 As described in the IEEE 802.11p-2010 (incorporated by reference, see [§ 90.395](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-90.395)). | | |

[[69 FR 46444](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/69-FR-46444), Aug. 3, 2004, as amended at [82 FR 41548](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/82-FR-41548), Sept. 1, 2017; [86 FR 23298](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/86-FR-23298), May 3, 2021]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4341

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to qualify additional institutions

for programs under part B of title III of that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to qualify

additional institutions for programs under part B of

title III of that Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT

4 OF 1965.

5 Section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965

6 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(2)’’;

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘or that meets the require9 ments of subparagraph (B)’’ after ‘‘was established

10 prior to 1964’’; and
2

•HR 4341 IH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub2 paragraph:

3 ‘‘(B) In the case of any State within which no

4 institution meets the requirements of subparagraph

5 (A) of this paragraph, an institution that meets the

6 requirements of such subparagraph except that it

7 was established during or after 1964, but prior to

8 1978, shall be treated as meeting the requirements

9 of subparagraph (A).’’.

Æ
EX-4.2 AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO LONG-TERM DEBT



 





EXHIBIT
4.2




AGREEMENT
TO FILE INSTRUMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO LONG-TERM DEBT







Pursuant to Regulations S-K Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A), EMS Technologies, Inc. hereby agrees to
cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon its request, a copy of
any instrument, not filed as an exhibit to the Report or Registration Statement to which this Exhibit
pertains, with respect to long-term debt of EMS Technologies,
Inc. or any consolidated subsidiary of EMS Technologies, Inc.


Date:
February 26, 2007



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Timothy C. Reis	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Timothy C. Reis
Vice President and General
Counsel
#### EDWARD S. LOOP, Appellant, *v.*JAY GOULD, Respondent.

*Order requiring a party to .appear for examination, must be personally served.*

To punish a party for contempt, in failing to appear and be examined as a witness before trial, a copy of the order requiring him so to do must have been personally served upon him.

Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order requiring him to appear and be examined before trial, and directing that in default of his so doing his complaint be stricken out. The order and papers relating to the examination were served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff but not upon the plaintiff himself.

*Henry D. Hotchkiss,*for the appellant.

*II. W.*Bookstaver, for the respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion made by the plaintiff should have been granted, for the reason that there was no personal service upon the plaintiff of the order requiring him to appear. (See *Tebo*v. Baker, decided, by the Court of Appeals and reported in the Albany Law Journal, Saturday, May 17, 1879, vol. 19, p. 398.) To subject a party to any punishment in suc*h proceeding it is necessary, as Ave understand the decision referred to, that there should be a personal *586service upon the party of the process requiring him to appear and be examined.

For this reason, we think that the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Brady, P. J., Ingalls and Daniels, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4812

AN ACT

To direct the Administrator of General Services to acquire

by transfer the Old U.S. Mint in San Francisco, California, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4812 EH

1 SECTION 1. OLD U.S. MINT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

2 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment

3 of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall

4 take such actions as may be necessary to acquire by trans5 fer, without consideration, the property referred to as the

6 ‘‘Old U.S. Mint’’, located at Fifth and Mission Streets in

7 San Francisco, California, together with any improve8 ments, structures, and fixtures located on the property.

Passed the House of Representatives August 8,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4812

AN ACT

To direct the Administrator of General Services to

Francisco, California, and for other purposes.acquire by transfer the Old U.S. Mint in San
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 Quarterly Report of Jones Soda Co. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen C. Jones, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Stephen C. Jones    |  |  |  | August 8, 2008
|Stephen C. Jones        |  |  |  |               
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
#### § 80.755 Applicability.

Applications for maritime frequencies in the 156-162 MHz band must include a map showing the proposed service area contour. The service area contour must be computed in accordance with the following procedures.
If you can see this, it means that the installation of the Apache webserver software on this system was successful. You may now addcontent to this directory and replace this page.

----

## Seeing this instead of the website youexpected?

This page is here because the site administrator has changed theconfiguration of this web server. Please **contact the personresponsible for maintaining this server with questions.**The Apache Software Foundation, which wrote the web server softwarethis site administrator is using, has nothing to do withmaintaining this site and cannot help resolve configurationissues.

----

The Apache documentation has been includedwith this distribution.

You are free to use the image below on an Apache-powered webserver. Thanks for using Apache!
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1614

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jose Valencia-Mata lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: August 7, 2014 Filed: August 14, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Valencia-Mata directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy offense, pursuant to

1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.a plea agreement containing anappeal waiver. His couns el has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief unde r Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Valencia-Mata’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Valencia-Mata has filed a pro se brief, suggesting that his guilty plea was involuntary, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and thathe was entitled to safety-valve relief. First, we conclude that Valencia-Mata’ s challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea is not cognizable because he did not move to withdraw his plea below. See United States v. Umanzor , 617 F.3d 1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant may not challenge voluntariness of guilty plea for firs t time on direct appeal if he did not move to withdraw plea in district court). Next , we decline to cons ider his ineffectiveassistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory , 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007) (ineffective-assistan ce claims are ordinarily deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). Further, afte r careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver as to the remaining cha llenges to Valencia-Mata’s sentence. SeeUnited States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal wher e it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). Finally, having reviewed the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be c onsistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Impl ement the Criminal Ju stice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel’s mo tion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

______________________________ -2-
**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 Quarterly Report ofInteractive Intelligence, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Donald E. Brown,Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Donald E. Brown, M.D              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E. Brown, M.D.                 |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 15, 2005                  |

 

----
#### § 95.2191 LPRS marketing limitations.

Transmitters intended for operation in the LPRS may be marketed and sold only for those uses described in § 95.2131.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Guy Gecht, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

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 Company.

Date: November 27, 2017

|                                     |  |              
|------------------------------------ |  | -------------
|                                     | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Guy Gecht
|Guy Gecht                           
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc Olin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of 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.

Date: November 27, 2017

|                        |  |              
|----------------------- |  | -------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Marc Olin
|Marc Olin              
|Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-10795.

#### Trujillo *v.*Medina, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.434 Remote control operation. ( a ) A remote control system must provide adequate monitoring and control functions to permit proper operation of the station.
( b ) A remote control system must be designed, installed, and protected so that the transmitter can only be activated or controlled by persons authorized by the licensee.
( c ) A remote control system must prevent inadvertent transmitter operation caused by malfunctions in the circuits between the control point and transmitter.
[51 FR 4602, Feb. 6, 1986, as amended at 60 FR 55482, Nov. 1, 1995]
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report") for Electronic  Game Card,  Inc.,  (the  "Company"),  the  undersigned
hereby certifies that:

(1)      to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

(2)      to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         result of operations of the Company.

May 5, 2006


/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
---------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER