alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SHAK-20161102_Exhibit 10.1



Exhibit 10.1








November 1, 2016






Dear Josh:


This letter sets forth the terms and conditions of your election to serve as a director (“Director”) on the board of directors (the “Board”) of Shake Shack Inc. (the “Company”) and to serve as a member of the Audit Committee of the Board (“Committee”), effective as of November 17, 2016.  
As a Director, you are expected to attend at least four (4) Board meetings and Committee meetings annually and shall have such other duties and responsibilities as are customarily associated with this position.  You shall continue to serve on the Board until such time as either you or the Company (or its successor) terminates your service or you are not re-elected to the Board.  
As consideration for your anticipated service on the Board and the Committee, you will be entitled to receive cash and equity compensation consistent with the Company’s Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy (the “Compensation Policy”).  As such, for the current annual Director service cycle, from May 18, 2016 through May 17, 2017, (A) you shall receive cash equal to $18,750, payable in two (2) equal installments of $9,375, within 3 business days following each of the November 17, 2016 and March 15, 2017 quarterly meetings of the Board, and (B) you shall be granted, within one (1) business day following the November 17, 2016 meeting of the Board, a non-qualified stock option with a fair market value of $18,750 on the date of the grant.  You agree that you shall comply with the Company’s Compensation Policy.   
You will also be entitled to coverage under a directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy maintained by the Company.
During your tenure as a Director, you shall at all times and for all purposes be acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the Company.  Accordingly, you shall not be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans provided by the Company to its employees and the Company shall not, on your account, (i) pay any unemployment tax or other taxes required under the law to be paid with respect to employees or (ii) withhold any monies from any compensation paid to you for income or employment tax purposes.  Director compensation is established by the Board and so, notwithstanding this letter, it may be revised at any time and from time to time.
Please confirm that the foregoing reflects your understanding by delivering to us a signed version of this letter at your earliest convenience.  We are glad to have you aboard and look forward to working together.  Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss any aspect of your service on the Board.    
Sincerely,
                        	
	
	 /s/   Daniel H. Meyer

	Daniel H. Meyer, Chairman










Accepted & Agreed:
	
	
	 /s/   Josh Silverman

	Josh Silverman






Date: November 1, 2016
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

In light of the Court's Order Re: Settlement and 1

Disposition, the May 23, 2005 Status Conference is vacated. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PCC FLOW TECHNOLOGIES LP, a

Delaware limited partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

TKD, INC., a California

corporation; and AEROJETGENERAL CORPORATION, an Ohio

corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-2612 MCE/JFM

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, the court has determined that this case is settled.1

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before June 24,

2005. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02612-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 05/18/05 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

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02612-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Kwasi S. Harold S., Appellant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 579]

—Motions to dismiss appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from an order entered on default denied and motion for permission to proceed as poor person and for assign*1030ment of counsel denied with leave to renew upon submission by appellant of current financial affidavit. Memorandum: Where a party fails to appear for a hearing but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded *(see,*CPLR 321 [a]; 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Law-ton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.
### -78 -76 -74 -72 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/17 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2521 LKK GGH P

vs.

L. HINZEHUFF, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 14, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02521-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 08/25/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 14, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: August 25, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/lars2521.800

Case 2:04-cv-02521-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



COMMENTS BY AUDITORS ON CANADA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPORTING DIFFERENCE

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when there are
changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the
comparability of the Companys financial statements, such as the changes
described in Note 3 to the financial statements. Our report to the
shareholders dated February 12, 2003 is expressed in accordance with Canadian
reporting standards, which do not require a reference to such changes in
accounting principles in the auditors report when the changes are properly
accounted for and adequately disclosed in the financial statements.



/S/ Deloitte & Touche
LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Ontario
February 12, 2003
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California

corporation,

NO. CIV. S-04-2534 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

MICHAEL CROW,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s request to continue the

date by which to file dispositional documents after notification

of settlement. Plaintiff states that the parties have exchanged

several drafts of the proposed settlement agreement and need an

additional thirty (30) days to finalize the agreement. Having

considered the plaintiff’s papers and good cause appearing,

plaintiff’s request will be granted. 

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 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

2

The deadline by which to file dispositional documents is EXTENDED

thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 1, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02534-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61361.

protest 283781-K (New York).

#### Hershey Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items in question are not in chief value of galalith but that they are in chief value of steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items.
(Reap. Dec. 9472)

#### W. R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 4989; 1902.

(Decided June 23, 1959)

*JoJm D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to certain parts of diesel engines exported from England and entered at the port of New Orleans, La.

Stipulated facts, upon which the cases have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the invoiced f .o.b. seaport price, plus 5 per centum, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DAVID L. SPRAGUE, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 127, 42 CMR 319

No. 23,276

November 6, 1970

*Captain R. O. Kellam,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review. United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this ease that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970).

The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in *Palos,*supra.
No. 58577.

protest 228973-K (Los Angeles).

#### The American Import Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1445), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.-
Before the Third Division,

November 27, 1946

No. 51441.

#### Protest 114370-K of Giavi Co., Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Keeps, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  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 Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
Company.




/s/Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen-AbbottChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      15, 2009
No. 54700.

#### F. W. Myers and Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 152672-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cork composition typewriter platen shells made by superimposing one layer of compressed cork over a layer of cork composition material and that the typewriter platen shells are not made in any part of natural cork bark or cork. On the record presented the claim at 16 cents per pound under paragraph 1511 was sustained.
# C_2007175EN.01004001.xml

| 27.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/40

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors’

COM(2007) 192 final — 2007/0066 (COD)

(2007/C 175/10)

On 11 May 2007 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Considering that the content of the proposal is entirely satisfactory and requires no comment on its part, the Committee, at its 436th plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2007 (meeting of 30 May), approved the proposed text by 162 votes to 1 with 8 abstentions.

Brussels, 30 May 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
No. 64158.

protest 181276-K (New York).

#### Taub, Hummel & Schnall, Inc., a/c Simon Healey & Goldstein, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C.D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57319.

protest 165502-K (New York).

#### A. Newberg & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 56975, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUEBEN ROBERTS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2232 MCE PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 30, 2006, respondent filed a motion to

dismiss. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in

part: “Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no

opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner show cause,

within twenty days, why respondent’s January 30, 2006, motion to dismiss should not be granted. 

DATED: March 16, 2006.

\004\robe2232.osc no opp

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 26 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 11.0

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Three months ended    Three months ended   Six months ended   Six months ended
                                                June 30, 2006         June 30, 2005       June 30, 2006      June 30, 2005
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>                 <C>               <C>
Income available to common stockholders              $(4,210)             $85,883             $38,530           $188,766

Weighted average shares outstanding                2,693,286            2,663,415           2,693,678          2,663,415

Basic earnings per share                             $(0.002)              $0.032              $0.014             $0.071

Income for diluted earnings per share                $(4,210)             $85,883             $38,530           $188,766

Total weighted average common shares and
     equivalents outstanding for
     diluted computation                           2,693,286            2,663,415           2,693,678          2,693,415

Diluted earnings per share                           $(0.002)              $0.032              $0.014             $0.071
</TABLE>


                                       20
No. 57330.

protest 197340-K (New York).

#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record disclosing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period after liquidation, as required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. By order filed March 9,

2006, the district court granted plaintiff an additional twenty days to file objections. On April 7,

2006, plaintiff was granted a second extension of time to file objections on or before April 27,

2006. That date has now passed and plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 28, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s June 6, 2005 amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim. 

DATED: June 22, 2006.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/jenk2520.800b

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 42 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10751)

#### American Roland Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 808494.

(Decided May 12, 1964)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED hy and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. The merchandise marked “A” and initialed ECA by Examiner E. Alfano on the invoice herein consists of Ascorbic Acid, exported from Denmark to the United States during the period from September 1,1962 through March 22, 1963.

> 2. Ascorbic Acid is on the final list promulgated by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, published as T.D. 54521, in the Federal Register, issue of January 20, 1958.

> 3. That at the time of exportation of such merchandise its export value within the meaning of Section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act *of*1930, as amended by *557the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was less than its foreign value within the meaning of Section 402a (c) of that Act.

> 4. That foreign value, as defined in Section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Ac.t of 1956, is the proper basis of determining the value for appraisement of this merchandise, and that such value is:

> Rate

> Period Value exchange

> 9/1/62 to 3/22/63 35. Danish Krone per Kilo, net, plus U.S. $0.02 100% official per Kilo, export packing.

> 5. The appeal for reappraisement may be submitted on this stipulation.

On. the agreed facts, I find and hold foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value for the indicated period is as follows:

> Rate

> Period Value exchange

> 9/1/62 to 3/22/63 35. Danish Krone per Kilo, net, plus U.S. $0.02 100% official per Kilo, export packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.