alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 

On July 26, 2013, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Blackstone Mortgage Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted a
revised compensation arrangement for each non-employee director effective as of October 1, 2013. The compensation arrangement provides for (i) an annual cash retainer of $50,000, payable in quarterly installments, and (ii) a $75,000
annual award of the Company’s deferred stock units, payable in quarterly installments, with the number of units equal to the quarterly fee divided by the average closing price of the Company’s class A common stock for the Company’s
fiscal quarter preceding the date of the grant and subject to the terms of the Blackstone Mortgage Trust, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan. Additional deferred stock units equal to the amount of class A common stock that could be purchased with any
dividends that are paid on the underlying class A common stock will be added to the deferred stock units that are awarded. The award will be vested in full as of the date of grant and settled upon the non-employee director’s “separation
from service” (as defined in Treas. Reg. 1.409A-1(h)) with the Company by delivering to the non-employee director one share of class A common stock for each deferred stock unit settled. Additionally, the chairperson of the audit committee of
the Board will continue to receive a $12,000 annual cash retainer, payable in quarterly installments in advance. 
 The Company reimburses
directors for actual expenses incurred in the performance of their service as directors, including travel expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings.
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 173.55 [Reserved]
#### Minnie E. O’Connor et al., Respondents, *v.*George J. Bauer, Appellant.

*O’Connor*v. *Bauer,*127 App. Div. 854, affirmed.

(Submitted October 7, 1910;

decided October 28, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 27,1908, in favor of plaintiffs upon the submission of a controversy pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to whether the defendant is bound by certain covenants in his title to refrain from erecting any building on a strip of land that may obstruct windows in plaintiffs’ adjoining building.

*Horace J. Tuttle*for appellant.

*Joseph M. Teely*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
#### Henry A. Ockershausen, *Respondent, v.*George P. Ockershausen, *Appellant.*

— Order of surrogate reversed, with costs to be paid by Henry A. Ockershausen, personally. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Balance Sheet and the Statement of Operations of Noel Group, Inc.
and subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   1,117
<SECURITIES>                             8,983
<RECEIVABLES>                           27,741
<ALLOWANCES>                             3,718
<INVENTORY>                             34,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        72,512
<PP&E>                                  50,743
<DEPRECIATION>                          12,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         230,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   35,526
<BONDS>                                 60,983
<COMMON>                                 2,022
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0 
<OTHER-SE>                              95,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           230,521
<SALES>                                189,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       189,325
<CGS>                                  106,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          106,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       7,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (4,247)
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,105)
<DISCONTINUED>                             448
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        



</TABLE>
§ 1552.17 FTSP Portal. ( a ) Candidates must obtain an FTSP Portal account and use the FTSP Portal to submit the information and fees necessary to initiate a security threat assessment under subpart B of this part.
( b ) Flight training providers who provide flight training to candidates must obtain an FTSP Portal account and use the FTSP Portal to notify TSA of all candidate flight training events and confirm that a candidate is eligible for flight training. The flight training provider also may use the FTSP Portal for other recordkeeping purposes related to the requirements in § 1552.15.
( c ) The FTSP Portal account administrator for flight training providers who operate under 14 CFR part 61, either as an individual certified flight instructor, or for a group of certified flight instructors, must be an FAA certificate holder. The FTSP Portal account administrator for flight training providers who operate under 14 CFR parts 121, 135, 141, and 142 is not required to be an FAA certificate holder.
( d ) TSA may suspend a flight training provider's access to the FTSP Portal at any time, without advance notice.
*Wednesday, January 13, 1999*

MERIT DOCKET

98-2083.

#### Maumee v. Weisner.

Lucas App. No. L-97-1409. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). This cause is therefore dismissed.

Douglas, Bryant, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Peggy Bryant, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
§ 172.427 ORGANIC PEROXIDE label. ( a ) Except for size and color, the ORGANIC PEROXIDE label must be as follows:
( b ) In addition to complying with § 172.407, the background on the ORGANIC PEROXIDE label must be red in the top half and yellow in the lower half.
[71 FR 78627, Dec. 29, 2006]
CITY COURT OF BROOKLYN.

#### Max Eppendorf, respondent, agt. The Brooklyn City and Newtown Railroad Company, appellant.

*General*Term,

*May,*1876.

*Injuries arising from negligence on a city railroad,.*

Where the plaintiff in attempting to get on an open city railroad car while it was slowly moving, the driver holding on to the brake for that purpose, but before he got his foot placed safely on the car step the driver let go the brake and the horses started with a sudden jerk of the car throwing the plaintiff’s foot &om the step down upon the track where it was mutilated by the car wheel, *held,*that the railroad company was liable.

Present—Neilson, *Ch. J., and*Reynolds, *J.*

This case was tried before Mr. justice MoCue and a jury and verdict rendered for plaintiff. .

The defendant now makes a motion for a new trial on appeal from the judgment.

*Lewis Hurst & Mr.*Badger, for appellant.

*T. C. Cranin,*for respondent, citing *Filer*agt. *N. Y. C. R.*(49 *N.*Y., 42); *Milliman*agt. N. Y. *C. R.*(4 *Hun,*407); *Meddlestadt*agt. *W. A. R. R. Co.*(32 *Howard,*428); *Bodist*agt. *Lake, M. and S. R. Co.*(4 *Hun,*346).

Reynolds, J.

—According to the plaintiff’s statement, which we must assume to be true, he attempted to get upon *476one of defendant’s open cars by stepping upon the side rail, or foot board, at the same time taking hold of the railing at the end of one of the seats. In consequence of plaintiff’s signal to stop the driver had applied the brake, and was still holding it, and the car was nearly at a stop when the plaintiff thus attempted to get on. Plaintiff saw the driver leaning over his brake and looking at him as he was stepping up, but at that instant the driver let go the brake, causing a jerk, before plaintiff’s right foot was fairly on the stepping board. His foot struck upon the edge of the board, but slipping, and as the leg went down the foot was caught and mutilated by the wheel.

We cannot hold as matter of law that the plaintiff, in attempting to get on the car under the circumstances described by himself, was guilty of negligence contributing to the injury. He had a right to assume that the brake would be kept on till he was safely on board. It may be conceded that by commencing to get on before the car had come to a complete stop he assumed all the risk incident to the motion which the car then had but not the danger arising from the sudden start or “ jerk ” which was given to it by letting go the brake too soon; he was not bound to anticipate such negligence on the part of the driver. We think the case was fairly and clearly stated by the court in the charge, and we see no occasion to interfere with the verdict.' The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Neilson, Ch. J., concurs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 I, Bryon Look, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
LSI Logic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 3,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of LSI Logic Corporation. By: /s/ Bryon LookName: Bryon LookTitle: Executive Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Application of Augustus Howland for an Order requiring Martin S. Cuykendall, *as Receiver, etc.,*to refund certain Moneys.

Order reversed, without costs, and without prejudice to any subsequent proceeding or suit. *(In the Matter of Douglass*v. *Cuykendall, as Receiver, etc.,*followed.)
§ 1510.17 Reporting requirements. ( a ) Each direct air carrier and foreign air carrier collecting security service fees must provide TSA with quarterly reports that provide an accounting of fees imposed, collected, refunded and remitted.
( b ) Quarterly reports must state: ( 1 ) The direct air carrier or foreign air carrier involved;
( 2 ) The total amount of September 11th Security Fees imposed on passengers in U.S. currency for each month during the previous quarter of the calendar year;
( 3 ) The net amount of September 11th Security Fees collected in U.S. currency by the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier for each month during the previous quarter of the calendar year;
( 4 ) The total amount of September 11th Security Fees refunded in U.S. currency by the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier for each month during the previous quarter of the calendar year; and
( 5 ) The total amount of September 11th Security Fees remitted in U.S. currency by the direct air carrier or foreign air carrier for each month during the previous quarter of the calendar year.
( c ) The report must be filed by the last day of the calendar month following the quarter of the calendar year in which the fees were imposed.
[66 FR 67701, Dec. 31, 2001, as amended at 67 FR 14881, Mar. 28, 2002]
98-837.

#### State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, APL/CIO v. Lawrence Cty. Gen. Hosp.

In Mandamus. On bill and documentation in support of request for attorney fees.

IT IS ORDERED by the court that relators’ counsel submit evidence of the actual hourly rate for attorney fees they charged to relators within ten days of the date of this entry. See, *e.g., State ex rel. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Petro*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 1234, 690 N.E.2d 11.
#### §§ 176.122-176.124 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

#### § 107.337 Injunctions generally.

Whenever it appears to the Office of Chief Counsel that a person has engaged, or is engaged, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, this subchapter, subchapter C of this chapter, or any special permit, or order issued thereunder, for which the Office of Chief Counsel exercises enforcement responsibility, the Administrator, PHMSA, or his delegate, may request the Attorney General to bring an action in the appropriate United States District Court for such relief as is necessary or appropriate, including mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief, interim equitable relief, and punitive damages as provided by 49 U.S.C. 5122(a).

[Amdt. 107-11, 48 FR 2651, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended by Amdt. 107-32, 59 FR 49131, Sept. 26, 1994]
Presidential Documents

37095 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 129 

Friday, July 6, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8159 of July 2, 2007 

Grant of Executive Clemency 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 

05–394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, 2 years’ 

supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 

was imposed on June 22, 2007; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the 

Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence 

upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in 

effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and 

all other components of the sentence. 

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day 

of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 07–3328 

Filed 7–5–07; 11:34 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES4GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
#### Hall *v.*Nelson *& a.*

Whether a wagon is exempt from attachment as a farming tool, or a tool of the debtor’s occupation, is a question of fact.

Trespass, for the caption and conversion of a wagon. The defendants justified under an attachment in July, 1.879. Facts found by a referee.

The wagon was the only one owned by the plaintiff. He used it for ordinary family purposes, and in 1878 and 1879 he used the hind wheels in connection with a rack and other wheels to draw the hay cut on his farm to the barn, and in harvesting other crops. The plaintiff’s main business was that of a showman, and his principal use of the wagon was to transport himself and the views and apparatus illustrating his astronomical lectures about the country. When the wagon was attached, the plaintiff objected, and claimed that it was exempt from attachment.

The referee found for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages, and the court ordered judgment, and the defendants excepted.

Flanders, for the defendants.

Shirley, for the plaintiff.

Stanley, J.

The question at issue was, whether the wagon, when attached, was exempt either as a farming tool, or a tool of the plaintiff’s occupation. This was a question of fact to be determined by the referee upon all the evidence, and the finding for the *574plaintiff was a finding of every material fact upon which the plaintiff’s right of recovery depended. *Allard*v. Hamilton, 58 N. H. 416; *Noyes*v. Patrick, 58 N. H. 618; *Rice*v. Wadsworth, *ante*100; *Richards*v. Hubbard, ante 158; *Gceorge*v. Fellows, ante 206.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending June 12, 2010

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 101



		

			 

		




		
			Exhibit 10.1
		

		
			 
		

		
			HUDSON ADVISORS LLC
		

		
			HUDSON AMERICAS LLC
		

		
			2711 N. Haskell Avenue, Suite 1800
		

		
			Dallas, Texas 75204
		

		
			
		

		
			 
		

		
			July 22, 2013
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Del Frisco’s Restaurant Group, Inc.
		

		
			930 S. Kimball Ave., Ste. 100
		

		
			Southlake, Texas 76092
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						RE:

					
					
						Transition Services Agreement dated on or about August 1, 2012 (as amended, supplemented, restated, or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Agreement”) by and between Hudson Americas LLC, Hudson Advisors LLC, and Del Frisco’s Restaurant Group, Inc.

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			Ladies and Gentlemen:
		

		
			 
		

		
			Reference is hereby made to the Agreement.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Please execute this letter agreement where indicated below in order to evidence your agreement with HAM and HAL that the Agreement shall be terminated on and as of 11:59 p.m. CDT on July 31, 2013 (the “Termination Date”).  Promptly after the Termination Date, HAM and HAL shall submit their final invoice to the Company in respect of Services provided prior to the Termination Date.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						HDUSON ADVISORS LLC

					
					
						HUDSON AMERICAS LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Stewart L. Motley

					
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Kyle Volluz

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Name: Stewart L. Motley

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Name: Kyle Volluz

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						Title: Vice President - Tax

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Title: Director

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			Agreed to and accepted:
		

		
			 
		

		
			DEL FRISCO’S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By:  /s/ Thomas J. Pennison, Jr._________
		

		
			      Name: Thomas J. Pennison, Jr. 
		

		
			      Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Emil Wyler, *Appellant, v.*Peter Bowe, *Sheriff, etc., Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 11
 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
  Year ended December 31,2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006(In thousands of U.S. dollars except per share information)Net (loss) income from continuing operations
    
    $
    (17,539
    )
    
    $
    (36,220
    )
    
    $
    (9,247
    )
    
    $
    (125,537
    )
    
    $
    39,898Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of
income tax
    
    
    
    
    
    
    135,654
    
    
    
    144,138
    
    
    
    15,540
    
    
    
    (141,503
    )Net (loss) income available to common shareholders
    
    $
    (17,539
    )
    
    $
    99,434
    
    
    $
    134,891
    
    
    $
    (109,997
    )
    
    $
    (101,605
    )Basic and diluted net (loss) income per common shareContinuing operations
    
    $
    (0.33
    )
    
    $
    (0.64
    )
    
    $
    (0.12
    )
    
    $
    (1.68
    )
    
    $
    0.48Discontinued operations
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.41
    
    
    
    1.93
    
    
    
    0.21
    
    
    
    (1.68
    )Net (loss) income
    
    $
    (0.33
    )
    
    $
    1.77
    
    
    $
    1.81
    
    
    $
    (1.47
    )
    
    $
    (1.20
    )Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
(in thousands)
    
    
    52,382
    
    
    
    56,194
    
    
    
    74,620
    
    
    
    74,907
    
    
    
    84,596Diluted weighted average number of common shares
outstanding (in thousands)
    
    
    52,382
    
    
    
    56,194
    
    
    
    74,620
    
    
    
    74,907
    
    
    
    84,596
§ 97.40-10 Draft marks and draft indicating systems. ( a ) All vessels must have draft marks plainly and legibly visible upon the stem and upon the sternpost or rudderpost or at any place at the stern of the vessel as may be necessary for easy observation. The bottom of each mark must indicate the draft.
( b ) The draft must be taken from the bottom of the keel to the surface of the water at the location of the marks.
( c ) In cases where the keel does not extend forward or aft to the location of the draft marks, due to raked stem or cut away skeg, the datum line from which the draft shall be taken shall be obtained by projecting the line of the bottom of keel forward or aft, as the case may be, to the location of the draft marks.
( d ) In cases where a vessel may have a skeg or other appendage extending locally below the line of the keel, the draft at the end of the vessel adjacent to such appendage shall be measured to a line tangent to the lowest part of such appendage and parallel to the line of the bottom of the keel.
( e ) Draft marks must be separated so that the projections of the marks onto a vertical plane are of uniform height equal to the vertical spacing between consecutive marks.
( f ) Draft marks must be painted in contrasting color to the hull.
( g ) In cases where draft marks are obscured due to operational constraints or by protrusions, the vessel must be fitted with a reliable draft indicating system from which the bow and stern drafts can be determined.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 17011, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGD 89-037, 57 FR 41823, Sept. 11, 1992]
#### The People of the State of New York *v.*The Globe Mutual Life Insurance Company.

— Receiver’s accounts ordered on file without approval; application in respect to attorney’s bills denied, without prejudice to the presentation of the attorney’s bills in the form provided by statute. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*