alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




Summary
of the 2007 Executive Incentive Bonus Plan




     In order to provide incentive to senior management to achieve various corporate goals
established by the board for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, Taleo has adopted the 2007
Executive Incentive Bonus Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan provides for payment of bonuses to all of
Taleo’s executive officers and other members of senior management.



     Aggregate cash bonus amounts range between 32% and 133% of base salary per individual at
on-target achievement of bonus plan goals. Each individual’s bonus will be determined by an
individualized formula based on the achievement of a variety of yearly and quarterly performance
objectives, including bookings, revenue, gross margins, cost of goods sold, system up-time,
customer renewal rates and other objectives. For certain performance objectives it is possible to
exceed on-target achievement and receive a bonus payment in excess of the bonus payment payable for
on-target achievement.



     Bonus payments are anticipated to be made both quarterly and yearly, depending on the relevant
performance objective. The Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of Taleo’s Board of
Directors, and will terminate in 2008.
§ 8.210 Dismissal of application. ( a ) An application that is not in accordance with the provisions of this subpart may be dismissed.
( b ) Any application, upon written request signed by the applicant or their agent, may be dismissed prior to a determination granting or denying the authorization requested.
( c ) If an applicant is requested to submit additional documents or information and fails to submit the requested material within the specified time period, the application may be dismissed.
§ 80.1117 Procedure for receipt and acknowledgement of distress alerts. ( a ) Normally, distress calls received using digital selective calling are only acknowledged using a DSC acknowledgement by a coast station. Ships should delay any acknowledgement in order to give sufficient time for a coast station to acknowledge the call. In cases where no acknowledgement has been heard and no distress traffic has been heard, the ship should transmit a distress alert relay to the coast station. Upon advice from the Rescue Coordination Center, the ship may transmit a DSC acknowledgement call to stop it from being repeated. Acknowledgement by digital selective calling of receipt of a distress alert in the terrestrial services must comply with ITU-R M.541-9 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 80.7).
( b ) Acknowledgement through a satellite of receipt of a distress alert from a ship earth station must be sent immediately (see § 80.1119).
( c ) Acknowledgement by radiotelephony of receipt of a distress alert from a ship station or a ship earth station must be given in the following form: ( 1 ) The distress signal MAYDAY;
( 2 ) The call sign or other identification of the station sending the distress message, spoken three times;
( 3 ) The words THIS IS (or DE spoken as DELTA ECHO in case of language difficulties);
( 4 ) The call sign or other identification of the station acknowledging receipt, spoken three times;
( 5 ) The word RECEIVED (or RRR spoken as ROMEO ROMEO ROMEO in case of language difficulties);
( 6 ) The distress signal MAYDAY.
( d ) The acknowledgement by direct-printing telegraphy of receipt of a distress alert from a ship station must be given in the following form: ( 1 ) The distress signal MAYDAY;
( 2 ) The call sign or other identification of the station sending the distress alert;
( 3 ) The word DE;
( 4 ) The call sign or other identification of the station acknowledging receipt of the distress alert;
( 5 ) The signal RRR;
( 6 ) The distress signal MAYDAY.
( e ) The acknowledgement by direct-printing telegraphy of receipt of a distress alert from a ship earth station must be given by the coast earth station receiving the distress alert by retransmitting the ship station identity of the ship transmitting the distress alert.
[57 FR 9065, Mar. 16, 1992, as amended at 68 FR 46980, Aug. 7, 2003; 73 FR 4491, Jan. 25, 2008; 76 FR 67618, Nov. 2, 2011]
No. 10-10846.

#### Hightower *v.*Coleman et al.

App. Ct. Ill., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Wenge Fang,certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Water Group, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 1, 2015

/s/ Wenge Fang

     Wenge Fang

     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 Lighting Science Group Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, **Ronald
E. Lusk** ,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, 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 as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Lighting Science Group Corporation and will be retained by Lighting Science
Group Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
 
 Signed on
May 2, 2005
 
 /s/ **Ronald
E. Lusk** Ronald E.
Lusk ,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 of
Lighting Science Group Corporation
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.452 Equipment changes. ( a ) Modifications may be made to an existing authorization in accordance with §§ 1.929 and 1.947 of this chapter.
( b ) All transmitters initially installed after November 30, 1977, must be certificated for use in this service or other service as specified in § 74.451(a).
[68 FR 12765, Mar. 17, 2003]
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   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of America West Resources, Inc. (the Company),  hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result s of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.    Date:  April 15, 2011By:/s/ Dan R. BakerDan R. BakerChief Executive Officer
No. 11-5633.

#### Taft *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2165. SHANNON TERRY et al. v. BRIAN STEPHENS.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After an

adverse ruling, tenants Shannon and Jannie Terry appealed to the superior court. On

June 1, 2015, the superior court entered an order affirming the magistrate court

judgment. On June 24, 2015, the Terrys filed a notice of direct appeal to this Court. 

We lack jurisdiction.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003) (punctuation

and citation omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because the Terrys did not

follow the proper procedure for requesting appellate review in this case, we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal.

Moreover, even if the Terrys had a right of direct appeal, this appeal is

untimely. Although a notice of appeal generally may be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed, appeals from judgments in dispossessory actions

must be filed within 7 days of the date the judgment was entered. See OCGA § 44-7-

56; Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road Joint Venture, 311 Ga. App. 334, 335-

336 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). The Terrys, however, filed their notice of appeal 23 days

after the superior court’s order was entered. 

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

August 10, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

08/10/2015
No. 11-5575.

#### Valencia *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000866878


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,059,310
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,319,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                     309,020
<INVENTORY>                                       46,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                     0
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,643,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                               0
<BONDS>                                          994,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,691,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,643,704
<SALES>                                        1,170,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,170,549
<CGS>                                              6,913
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 249,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (9,968)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     923,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          4.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          4.61
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our reports dated May 5, 2000 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of IntraNet Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries
which are incorporated by reference or included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of IntraNet Solutions, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2000. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of IntraNet Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (No.
333-11489, No. 333-66449, No. 333-66451, and No. 333-90843) and Forms S-3 (No.
333-33437, No. 333-57181, No. 333-30466, No. 333-34476 and No. 333-32102).

                                                          /s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 19, 2000

























                                       39
No. 10-11073.

#### Bohol v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Central Park Physical Medicine &amp; Rehab., P.C., as Assignee of Rafsan Choudhry, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>IDS Property &amp; Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Bruno, Gerbino &amp; Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for appellant.Sanders Barshay Grossman, LLC (Steven J. Neuwirth of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated October 12, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the District Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Defendant established that it had timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]) each of the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters by both first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested. While the District Court held that defendant had failed to establish that the follow-up EUO scheduling letter had been mailed by certified mail, that finding, even if correct, would not excuse the failure of plaintiff to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs, since the record does not contain any evidence showing that the mailing of the EUO scheduling letters to plaintiff by first-class mail had been insufficient (<a href="../2014/2014_51792.htm" target="_blank"><i>see MML Med. Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co.</i>, 46 Misc 3d 127</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51792[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Defendant further demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]), and that defendant had timely mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond</i>, 50 AD3d 1123) the denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant's prima facie showing.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.</p><p>ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: July 11, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### SIMONS et al. v. SIMONS.

No. 10765.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 6, 1950.

Decided Feb. 8, 1951.

Mr. Donald S. Caruthers, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Albert *C.*Borghi, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. George L. Hart, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Edward S'. Northrop, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before CLARK, PROCTOR and KIMBROUGH STONE (retired),* Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation.

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This action for maintenance was filed in the District Court by Ruth C. Fjelstad in .behalf of appellants, her minor sons, against appellee, their father and her former husband. He moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that as none of the parties were residents. of the District of Columbia and “the welfare of children, rights of property, or other public interests in the District of Columbia” were not affected, the, court should decline to take jurisdiction of the case. The motion was granted and this appeal follows. The record shows the boys and their mother to be actual and legal residents of Silver Spring, Maryland, and the father to be an actual and legal resident of Alexandria, Virginia.

The action is personal, hence transitory. Cf. Vertner v. Vertner, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 179, 70 F.2d 783. Therefore, the court had discretionary authority to exercise jurisdiction, notwithstanding nonresidence of the parties, or to apply the doctrine *forum non conveniens*and decline to do so. Curley v. Curley, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 163, 120 F.2d 730, certiorari denied, 1941, 314 U.S. 614, 62 S.Ct. 114, 86 L.Ed. 494; Melvin v. Melvin, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 129 F.2d 39; Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 1947, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055.

In our opinion there was no abuse of discretion. On the contrary, the court’s action in refusing to take jurisdiction seems fairly justified.

*365Obviously the action can be prosecuted in the adjoining county of Virginia, but a few miles from appellants’ home, with little, if any, more inconvenience or difficulty than in the District of Columbia, and probably with greater expedition.

There is no suggestion, and no reason to suppose, that appellee will avoid any judicial process or order in Virginia, for the record shows he has faithfully performed a long-standing agreement with his former wife for support of herself and the children. This indicates that he will likely comply with any obligation judicially imposed.

The crowded calendars of the District Court, with consequent long delay in the disposition of cases, are also important factors to be considered. This involves a public interest which should not be disregarded. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, supra at 330 U.S. 508, 67 S.Ct. 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055. In such circumstances it is only proper that foremost consideration should be given to litigants who' must of necessity use the local courts.

Affirmed.
No. 10-10811.

#### Meza *v.*Yates, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.