alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.25

 

Outside Director Compensation Program

 

 

The following compensation shall be payable in accordance with the terms below to Outside Directors which, for the avoidance of doubt, shall exclude (i) all members of the Board who are also employees of the Corporation, and (ii) all members of the Board who are affiliated with the Venture Sponsors.

 

Cash Compensation

 


		
	
Board Service
	
 

	
Annual Retainer:
	
$30,000

	
Committee Service
	
 

	
Audit Committee:
	
 

	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	
$15,000

	
Member Annual Retainer:
	
$8,000

	
Compensation Committee:
	
 

	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	
$10,000

	
Member Annual Retainer:
	
$5,000

	
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:
	
 

	
Chair Annual Retainer:
	
$8,000

	
Member Annual Retainer:
	
$4,000

	
Board Service and Committee Service Annual Retainers will be paid quarterly in arrears promptly following the end of the applicable calendar quarter, but in no event more than thirty days after the end of such quarter. 




 

Equity Compensation1

 


		
	
Initial RSU Award Grant:
	
Each Outside Director will receive a one-time restricted stock unit grant with respect to 3,750 shares of the Corporation’s common stock (as may be adjusted to reflect any changes in capitalization), granted on or after the date on which the Outside Director is first elected to the Board (the “Initial Grant”).  The Initial Grant will vest in twelve substantially equal installments on each three-month anniversary of the date of grant, subject to continued Board service through the applicable vesting date. 





	
	
 




 Share amounts in this section have been adjusted to reflect the 1-for-5 reverse stock split completed by the Corporation in August 2014.

 

 

 




 


	
Annual RSU Award Grant:
	
Each Outside Director who is serving on the Board on the day 

preceding any annual stockholders meeting (excluding any Outside Director that received an Initial Grant in the same calendar year as the calendar year in which the applicable annual stockholders meeting takes place) and whose service will continue on the day following such annual meeting (whether due to re-election or an ongoing term of service) will receive a restricted stock unit award grant with respect to 1,500 shares of the Corporation’s common stock (as may be adjusted to reflect any changes in capitalization), granted on the date of such annual stockholders meeting (each such grant, an “Annual Grant”).  Each Annual Grant will vest in twelve substantially equal installments on each three-month anniversary of the date of grant, subject to continued Board service through the applicable vesting date.   Each outstanding, unvested Annual Grant will automatically accelerate and vest in full upon the date on which (i) an Outside Director ceases to be an Outside Director due to his or her death or disability or (ii) an Outside Director stands for reelection but is not reelected to the Board.
No. 61878.

#### Plus Computing Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 261109-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of key-driven calculating machines and metal parts thereof similar in all material respects, except for having, in addition, an electric motor as an essential feature, to the merchandise the subject of *Plus Computing Machines,*
      *538
      *Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 160, C. A. D. 655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.(a).2

                            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 Partner Communications Company
Ltd (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

                  1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: March 14, 2003             /s/    AMIKAM COHEN
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Name:  Amikam Cohen
                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 14, 2003             /s/    ALAN GELMAN
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Name:  Alan Gelman
                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                   SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF JULIE R. DEAN


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

      In connection with the Annual Report of Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Julie R. Dean, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

Date: March 31, 2003                            By: /s/ JULIE R. DEAN
                                                    -----------------
                                                    Julie R. Dean
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
MuRowlCM 

CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT CONSULT ANTS 

United States of America 

Department Of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, DC 

Reg. Docket No. --- ----

In the Matter of Petition for Exemption of: 

Dirtonu, Inc. dba MurowlCM 

For an Exemption from the requirements of the 

Code of Federal Regulations Sections Concerning 

Commercial Operation of the DJI Phantom 3 

Unmanned Aircraft System 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 C.F.R. 

61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(l) & (a)(2), & 

91.41 ?(a) & (b) 

Murow I CM' 1151 Duryea Avenue Irvine, CA 92614
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnnie R. Lane, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 573]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: We reject the contention that defendant was coerced into rejecting the plea offer by Supreme Court’s mistaken calculation of the maximum sentence he could receive after trial *(see, People v Bradley,*184 AD2d 1041, *Iv denied*80 NY2d 927). The contention that the court failed to provide "meaningful notice” of the jury’s requests for further information and instruction *(see,*CPL 310.30) has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v DeRosario,*81 NY2d 801, 803; *People v Fink,*199 AD2d 855, *lv denied*83 NY2d 852), and we decline to exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The court properly deter*949mined that defendánt’s arrest was supported by probable cause *(see, People v Rivera,*210 AD2d 895) and properly denied the motion to suppress defendant’s statements to the police. The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe.

The sentence must be modified, however, because the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on the conviction of three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) arising out of the incident at Tomatoes Pizzeria *(see, People v Murphy,*115 AD2d 249, *lv denied*67 NY2d 887). We modify the sentence, therefore, by directing that the sentences imposed on counts 19, 20 and 21 of the indictment run concurrently *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
No. 58556.

protests 225337-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*447Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Consolidated Financial Statement Schedule

The
Board of Directors
Witness Systems, Inc.:

Under
date of March 15, 2005, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2004, as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. In connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in the index under Item 15(a)2 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In
our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects,
the information set forth therein.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Atlanta,
Georgia
March 15, 2005

---



QuickLinks
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPROXIMATELY $6,380.00 IN U.S.

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Civ. S-04-2609 DFL/DAD PS

ORDER

The court having considered the plaintiff's request for a

continuance of the status (pretrial scheduling) conference

currently scheduled for April 22, 2005, and for good cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status (pretrial scheduling)

conference is continued to May 27, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

Ddad1/orders.prose/approx$6,380.contSC

Case 2:04-cv-02609-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. PR06-18-002] 

Take notice that on December 20, 2006, Acadian Gas Pipeline System filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions in compliance with the Commission's letter order issued on December 6, 2006, in Docket Nos. PR06-18-000 and PR06-18-001. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Protest Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2007.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-438 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Skip NavigationEn Español

You are here:                Home » Disorders A - Z » Post-Polio Syndrome »             

Skip secondary menu

Home

Disorders A - Z

Information Page

Publications

Organizations

News

Research literature

Other related groupsOrganizationsProfessional SocietiesGovernment Resources

NINDS Clinical Trials

En EspañolOrder Brochures

News From NINDS

Recovery Act

Funding Information

Research Programs

Training & Career Awards

Enhancing Diversity

Find People

About NINDS

 

Email this pagePrint-friendly versionContact NINDS

----

Adobe ReaderMicrosoft Word Viewer

# Post-Polio Syndrome Fact Sheet

See a list of all NINDS Disorders

Get Web page suited for printing                              			Email this to a friend or colleague                              			                              			Request free mailed brochure                              		Síndrome de la Pospoliomielitis                              							PDF version                              						

## Table of Contents (click to jump to sections)
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01534

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01534\01534_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01534\01534_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01534\01534_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01534\01534_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

01534\Certification Statement Plant ID 01534.pdf Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
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

BARRY CULBERT, No. CIV.S-04-2434 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GARET ONLEY,

Defendant.

__________________________/

By findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2005, the

undersigned magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be granted and that plaintiff’s amended complaint be

dismissed with leave to amend. By order filed September 1, 2005, the

assigned district judged adopted those findings and recommendations

and dismissed the amended complaint with twenty days leave to amend. 

The required time expired and plaintiff did not file a second amended

complaint. Rather, on September 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an

“interlocutory appeal” challenging the district court’s order. By

order filed in this court on December 21, 2005, the United States

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 01/09/06 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

2

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal

for lack of jurisdiction since the order challenged in the appeal was

not final or appealable. More than four months has passed since the

order dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend

and plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 6, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\culbert2434.f&r2

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 55 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-2 05 01 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JUAN J AVIER CARDENAS, a.k .a. Mac eo , Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ju anJav ie r Car de na s ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f im pr is on m en t fo r 12 1 m on th s fo ll owi ng hi s p le a o f gu il t t o c on sp iri ng to co m m itfrau d i n c on ne ct io n wi thacce ss de vi ces , 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 9( b) (2 ), an d fr au d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e tr affi ck in g o f un au th or iz edacce ss de vi ces , id . § 1 02 9( a)(2 ). Card en as arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e is pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto ex pl ai n wh y itdi d no t o rd er h is fed eral sen te nc e to run co nc urren tl y with a ny sta te sen te nc e th at m ig htbe im

po se d fo r pe nd in g s ta te ch arg es ag ai ns t h im . W e aff irm. W e rev ie w sen te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss , whi chis de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardof rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). Card en as ’s sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e. At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e p art ie s’ st at em en ts , th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt, a ndth e st atut ory fact or s fo r se nt en ci ng , 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The di st ric t co urt i m po se d t he sen te nc e reque st edby the pa rti es . Card en as lat er re qu es te d t ha t the di stric t co urt p ro vi de hi m cred itforti m e se rv ed in st at e cu st od y

awai ti ng tri al on st at e ch arg es , bu t Ca rd en as di d n otreque stth at hi s fe de ral sen te nc e ru n c on cu rren tl y with any futur e st at e se nt en ce. The di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. AFFIRMED. 2
No. 44033.

#### Protest 651259-G of Schwabacher Hardware Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Penn*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 93). The claim at 90 percent under paragraph 1529 (a) was therefore sustained.
No. 52039.

#### Marshall Field & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 621325-G, etc. (New York).

*172Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

September 28, 1949

No. 53593.

petition 6463-R (Laredo).

#### J. G. Philen, Jr., Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

From the testimony it appeared that the entries in question were made during the war period when working conditions at Brownsville, Tex., were extremely crowded. This port was handling a gr'eat deal of the overflow business from Laredo. The testimony of the appraiser was corroborative of that offered by petitioner, relating to the attempt to obtain information from the foreign shipper and the pressure of work at Brownsville, causing the failure to amend the entries to meet the value adopted by the customs officials. From the evidence presented it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found by the appraiser was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
**Cause No. DA 22 -**  **0700 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA** 

IN THE MATTER OF: **JEREMY LOOK** , **ORDER FOR** Cross

- Claimant **EXTENSION OF TIME** And Appellant **TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING**  v. **CASEY McGOWAN** , **MEGAN McGOWAN** AND **KAREN SPAWN McGOWAN** Appellees

. On Appeal fro m th e Montana Ninth Judicial District Court, Glacier Count y, Cause No. DV
- 21
- 60 The Honorable Robert G. Olson Presiding Upon considerat io n of Appellant’s Motion for Extensio n to File Petit io n fo r Rehearing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant shall have up to and including October 2 6t h , 2023, within which to file a Peti tion f or Rehearing. No further extensions will be granted.
ELECTRONICALL

Y SIGNED AND DA

TED BELOW

. Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 11 th , 2023 10/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0700

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jeremy Look, 

### hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing Rulings - Commissions to the following on 10-10-2023 

### : Jason Trinity Holden (Attorney) 1314 CENTRAL AVE P.O. BOX 2466 Montana GREAT FALLS MT 59403 Representing: Casey McGowan, Megan McGowan, Karen Spawn McGowan Service Method: eService Katie Rose Ranta (Attorney) Faure Holden, Attorneys at Law, P.C. 1314 Central Avenue P.O. Box 2466 GREAT FALLS MT 59403 Representing: Casey McGowan, Megan McGowan, Karen Spawn McGowan Service Method: eService Jeremy Look (Appellant) 18924 Blackhawk Street Porter Ranch CA 91326 Service Method: Conventional

Electronically Signed By: Jeremy Look Dated: 10-10-2023