alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.24



 Exhibit 10.24 

DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 

Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 

For fiscal 2018, our non-employee directors were entitled to the following payments: 

 

	 	•	 	Annual retainer of $80,000 for each non-employee director 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $70,000 for the Lead Director 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $28,000 for the Audit Committee Chair 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $15,000 for each Audit Committee member (other than the Chair) 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $26,000 for the Chair of the subcommittee of the Audit Committee 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $23,000 for the Executive Compensation Committee Chair 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $10,000 for each Executive Compensation Committee member (other than the Chair) 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $18,000 for the Corporate Governance Committee Chair 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $8,000 for each Corporate Governance Committee member (other than the Chair) 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $18,000 for the Finance Committee Chair 

  

	 	•	 	Additional annual retainer of $8,000 for each Finance Committee member (other than the Chair) 

  

	 	•	 	Two annual deferred stock awards for each non-employee director, each representing shares of our common stock valued at $80,000 (pro-rated
for period of service if granted after the date of the annual meeting held during that fiscal year). 

 During fiscal 2018,
the annual retainer for non-employee directors was increased to $90,000, effective at the beginning of fiscal 2019. 

Directors are reimbursed for customary expenses for attending Board and committee meetings. The deferred stock awards (and deferred dividends
on those awards) are granted under our Stock Incentive Plan. One of the deferred stock awards vests immediately and is payable with accumulated dividends in stock at the earlier of separation from service as a director or change of control. The
second award vests at the annual meeting next following the grant of the award, based on service as a director for that year, and is payable with accumulated dividends in stock upon vesting or, if an irrevocable advance election is made, at the same
time as the first award. In the event that a non-employee director separates from service as a director prior to vesting in the second award, that award will be forfeited. 

Compensation of Directors who are Employees of the Company 

Directors who are employees of TJX are not paid for their service as a director.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RAUL ARREOLA

- MARRON, also known as Leonardo Lopez

- Ledezma , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 343

- 3

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Raul Arreola

- Marron has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arreola

- Marron h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40134 Document: 00514677491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2018No. 18

- 40134

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40134 Document: 00514677491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 ORDER- [C06-5079JKA]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DANIEL FROID,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C06-5079JKA 

ORDER FOR REMAND

Based on the stipulation of the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned

case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) will give further consideration to the medical source opinion of Randy Hurst, Psy.D.,

and the opinion of Robert G. Hoskins, M.D., State agency consultant. The ALJ will also consider

the lay witness statements and provide reasons for any that are rejected; reassess Plaintiff's

credibility and residual functional capacity; and reconsider whether Plaintiff can

///

Case 3:06-cv-05079-JKA Document 17 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 ORDER- [C06-5079JKA]

perform his past relevant work or other work, obtaining, as necessary, additional vocational

expert testimony. 

 This case is reversed and remanded on the above grounds pursuant to sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), upon proper request to this Court

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ CAROL A. HOCH WSB # 9289

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Phone: 206-615-2684

Fax: 206-615-2531

carol.a.hoch@ssa.gov

Case 3:06-cv-05079-JKA Document 17 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hock E. Tan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 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 ExchangeAct of 1934; and

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

          A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| /s/ HOCK E. TAN                                      |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                      |   |
| **Hock E. Tan Chief Executive Officer May 12, 2003** |   |
No. 63878.

protest 59/18778 (New York).

#### American Rieter Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.22






Summary of the Terms of Verint Systems Inc. Executive Officer Annual Bonus Plan
Verint Systems Inc. (the “Company”) maintains an annual bonus program (the “AIP”) for its executive officers. Under the AIP, each executive officer is eligible to receive an annual cash bonus upon the satisfaction of pre-determined performance goals, however, the Company may reserve the right to pay some or all of the bonus in shares of our common stock. The target bonus under the AIP is established annually by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) as part of the Committee’s regular compensation review process and is paid following certification by the Committee of the achievement of the underlying performance goals. In establishing target bonuses, in addition to the factors considered as part of the compensation review process generally, the Committee also considers the target bonus set forth in the executive officer’s employment agreement (if applicable), as well as special achievements, promotions, and other facts and circumstances specific to the individual officer. 
The performance goals under the AIP are based on revenue, a measure of profitability, and a measure of cash generation and are expressed on a non-GAAP basis. In the case of executive officers with direct responsibility for a specific operating unit, unit revenue and unit profitability goals may also be incorporated into the executive officer’s performance goals. The financial performance goals established by the Committee generally come in the form of a range, wherein the executive officer may achieve a percentage of his or her target bonus at the low end of the performance range (or threshold), 100% of his target bonus towards the middle of the performance range (target performance), and up to 200% of his target bonus at the high end of the performance range.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hadrian A. Hoppie, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 33]

—Appeal by the *529defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), imposed November 5, 1993, upon his conviction of attempted murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the amended sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 31/2 to 101/2 years.

Ordered that the amended sentence is modified, on the law, by reducing it to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *22ls*to 8 years; as so modified, the amended sentence is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that, under the unusual circumstances of this case, he established a legitimate expectation in the finality of his original sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment, and the Supreme Court’s imposition of a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 8 years upon resentencing the defendant violated the prohibition against double jeopardy *(see, Stewart v Scully,*925 F2d 58). The illegality of the defendant’s original sentence should have been corrected by reducing the minimum term of imprisonment to one third of the maximum. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Balletta, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                             392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    105,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,924
<PP&E>                                         116,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                (66,894)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,672
<BONDS>                                         13,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,913
<SALES>                                        127,647
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,647
<CGS>                                           97,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,781
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (950)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (209)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (741)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER DORIS MEISNER

AND TWO JOHN DOES,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5057 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND 

 DISMISSING ACTION 

 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this civil rights action be dismissed without prejudice

as the sole claim for relief is by writ of habeas corpus. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge, the

Plaintiff’s action is intertwined with the facts of his current deportation proceedings to the extent that

going forward with this action would call into question the propriety of Plaintiff’s current

detainment. A challenge that necessarily implies the invalidity of confinement must be brought as a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and not as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See, Butterfield v. Bail,

120 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff has failed objections asserting that his civil rights action does not implicate the

validity of the judgment or continuing confinement and his action is not confined to the writ of

habeas corpus. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, the objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the

Case 3:06-cv-05057-FDB Document 11 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05057-FDB Document 11 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

October 18, 1967

No. P67/345.

#### Service Cycle Supply Corp. *v.*United States, protest 62/11729 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of certain padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 66536.

#### Industrial Chemical & Dye Co. *v.*United States,

protest 324636-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic sheeting similar in use to patent leather and that the issues are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Prepac, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2111), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2710-2711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00573]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending December 15, 2012. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0204.
    Date Filed: December 11, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 2, 2013.
    Description: Application of National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a 
National Airlines requesting an exemption and amended certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing it to conduct scheduled 
foreign air

[[Page 2711]]

transportation of persons, property and mail between a point or points 
in the United States, a point or points in the United Arab Emirates, 
and beyond to a point or points in Afghanistan and a point or points in 
Iraq.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0205.
    Date Filed: December 11, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: January 2, 2013.
    Description: Application of National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a 
National Airlines requesting an amended certificate of public 
convenience and necessity authorizing it to conduct interstate 
scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail with large 
aircraft. National Airlines also requests an exemption to conduct such 
service while this application is pending.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-00573 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T F I L I B E R T O R OS AS C AR R I L L O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74552 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 659- 362 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anua ry10, 2011 ** B e f o r e : B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F i l i bert o R osas C arri l l o, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. R e vi e w i ng f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, 

# FI LED JAN 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74552 2 Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , w e de nythe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng C arr i l l o’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, because the B IA consi dere d the evi dence of hardshi p h e s ub m i tt ed and act ed w ith in its b r o a dd is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to w arr an t r e o p e n in g . Se e S i n gh v . I NS , 295 F . 3d 1037, 1039 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( T he B I A ’ s de ni a l of

am ot i on t o r e ope n s ha l l be r e ve r s e d i f i ti s “ arbi tr ary , i rr a t i ona l , or contraryt o l aw . ”) . C arr illo ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n a v a ilin g . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Before the Second Division,

August 19, 1958

No. 62300.

#### Sterns Fabrics and Laces, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 275921-K, 275922-K, and 275923-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C. D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

December 17, 1964

No. 68960.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/8632 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of permanently fitted plastic cases similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67837, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

June 2, 1966

No. P66/77.

protests 65/757, etc. (New York).

#### The Cottrell Co. and J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*910Ford, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of slitting machines and parts thereof, which parts are dedicated to use on or for said slitting machines, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc., and The Cottrell Company et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 414, Abstract 69266), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILIBERTO ROSAS CARRILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74552

Agency No. A078-659-362

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Filiberto Rosas Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

FILED

JAN 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74552

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), we deny the

petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Carrillo’s motion to reopen,

because the BIA considered the evidence of hardship he submitted and acted

within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to

warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (The

BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law.”).

Carrillo’s remaining contentions are unavailing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.