alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 


SERVISFIRST BANCSHARES, INC.


AMENDED AND RESTATED


2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS, ServisFirst
Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) has established and currently maintains the Amended and Restated 2005 Stock Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for the net settlement of Option exercises; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors of the Company has the authority to adopt the below amendments to the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors has approved of such amendments to the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the following amendment shall be made to the Plan:


 


1.          The
Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 3.2(c) of the Plan in its entirety and replacing with the following language:


 


“(c)          Payment.
Upon the exercise of an Option, the amount due to the Company shall be paid in cash or by check payable to the order of the Company
for the full purchase price of the shares of Stock for which such election is made. Except as otherwise determined by the Committee,
in its sole discretion, before the Option is exercised, all or a part of the exercise price may be paid by the Participant (i)
by delivery of unrestricted shares of the Company’s Stock owned by the Participant and acceptable to the Committee or (ii)
withholding (either actually or by attestation) of shares of Stock otherwise issuable under such Option having an aggregate Fair
Market Value (valued at the date of exercise) that is equal to the amount of cash that would otherwise be required; provided, however,
that withholding of shares of Stock pursuant to Section 3(c)(ii) hereof shall not be utilized in the exercise of Incentive Stock
Options.”


 


2.          This
First Amendment to the Plan was approved by the Board of Directors on June 20, 2016.


 


3.          Except
as expressly modified and amended herein, all the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged.


 


[Signature page follows]


 




    	 	1	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been executed on and is effective as of June 20, 2016.


 


	 	SERVISFIRST BANCSHARES, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Thomas A. Broughton, III
	 	Its:	President and Chief Executive Officer


 




    	 	2
#### Brian Barr, Respondent, v Country Motor Car Group, Inc. et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 370]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff partial summary judgment dismissing defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Because plaintiff withdrew his proceeding for eviction before the Carbone defendants vacated the premises, the court properly dismissed the defense alleging that plaintiff elected his remedy by terminating the landlord-tenant relationship *(see,*2 Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings § 23:56, at 221 [3d ed], citing *Swerdlow v Harrow,*213 App Div 521; *Baldwin v Thibaudeau,*17 NYS 532). The Purchase and Sale Agreement expressly provides that the Country defendants were entering into the agreement based upon matters revealed in their independent investigation and that plaintiff "does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy of any information.” Thus, the affirmative defenses alleging fraudulent inducement also were properly dismissed *(see, Clanton v Vagianelis,*187 AD2d 45, 47-48).

Summary judgment was properly granted against the Country defendants on the issue of liability for breach of the Lease and Closing Memorandum. Plaintiff did not release the Country defendants from their obligations under those agreements and, therefore, the Country defendants remain liable to perform those obligations following the assignment to the Car-bone defendants *(see, Mandel v Fischer,*205 AD2d 375, 376; *Leeirv Corp. v S & E Realty Co.,*178 AD2d 403; *185 Madison*
      *1004
      *Assocs. v Ryan,*174 AD2d 461). The Country defendants also remain liable to make payments under the Consulting Services Agreement and Restrictive Covenant Agreement notwithstanding the assignment *(see, Castiglia v Franchise Realty Interstate Corp.,*107 AD2d 1025). Evidence that plaintiff is a shareholder in a Manlius automobile dealership that has customers residing in the Utica area is not sufficient to raise a question of fact whether plaintiff breached the Restrictive Covenant Agreement. The court properly determined that the individual guarantors were not released from their obligations because the Guarantee expressly provides that it shall include and extend to any modifications of the underlying agreements (see, *Morgan v Smith,*70 NY 537; *Hall & Co. v Continental Cas. Co.,*34 AD2d 1028, *affd*30 NY2d 517; 63 NY Jur 2d, Guaranty and Suretyship, § 207, at 284). Finally, the Country defendants are not aggrieved by that part of the order reserving decision on their motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel and, therefore, that part of the order is not appealable *(see,*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Cobb v Kittinger,*168 AD2d 923). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.
Exhibit 10.4

AMENDMENT NO. 2  TO THE  WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.  AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (this "Amendment") is made effective as of the    
day of            , 2004, by Witness Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Company").

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted and currently maintains the Witness Systems, Inc. Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan to prohibit the repricing
of any stock options granted under the Plan without express prior stockholder approval;

NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the premises and mutual promises contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

Section 13.
Amendment or Termination



1

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Witness Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock
Incentive Plan to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  

2

---

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

SUZANNE A. LUBAN

Attorney at Law

State Bar No.: 120629

3758 Grand Ave. #4

Oakland, California 94610

Telephone 510/832-3555

Attorney for Petitioner

MYKEL HAWKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYKEL HAWKINS ) Civ. S-04-2495-MCE-GGH-P

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) ORDER 

)

SCOTT KERNON, )

)

(Formerly C.K. PLILER), WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________ )

For Good Cause Shown, this Court’s Order filed March 15, 2005 is hereby

modified to suspend the filing date for petitioner to file a Reply to respondent’s Answer,

to allow for the collection of additional declarations and to allow for counsel to seek

expansion of the record, either by motion or by stipulation. The parties shall appear for

a status conference on June 2, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. Either counsel may appear

telephonically upon notice to the Court’s courtroom deputy clerk 48 hours in advance of

the hearing. 

DATED: 5/2/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

hawk2495.eot04

Case 2:04-cv-02495-MCE -JFM Document 14 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 1
Appendix Table 1-5 

1

Appendix Table 1-5. Methods, reporting levels, and laboratories used for chemical analysis for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Gulf of Mexico, 2010: trace and major elements and nutrients in the less than 63-micrometer sediment fraction.[Method codes are from the National Water Information System (NWIS) database, and are defined in Table 1-6. Abbreviations: a, no reporting level because analyte was detected in all samples; CASRN, Chemical Abstracts Services Registry Number; na, not applicable; pcode, parameter code from the U.S. Geological Survey NWIS database; Percent of sediment less than 63 micrometers, percent of total sediment that passes through a 63-micrometer sieve; SCL, Sediment Chemistry Laboratory, Atlanta, Georgia; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mg/kg, milligram per kilogram; <, less than]

Analyte CASRN Pcode Laboratory Method code Reporting level1 Units

Aluminum 7429-90-5 03926 USGS SCL PLA20 0.5–5.0 PercentAntimony 7440-36-0 03929 USGS SCL HY017 0.3–5.0 mg/kg

Arsenic 7440-38-2 03933 USGS SCL HY017 a mg/kg

Barium 7440-39-3 03921 USGS SCL PLA20 a mg/kg

Beryllium 7440-41-7 03938 USGS SCL PLA20 0.1–5.0 mg/kg

Cadmium 7440-43-9 03925 USGS SCL AA095 0.1–3.8 mg/kg

Calcium 7440-70-2 03954 USGS SCL PLA20 0.3–5.0 PercentChromium 7440-47-3 03949 USGS SCL PLA20 9.0–50 mg/kg

Cobalt 7440-48-4 03950 USGS SCL PLA20 1.0–50 mg/kg

Copper 7440-50-8 03927 USGS SCL PLA20 50 mg/kg

Inorganic carbon 7440-44-0 03941 USGS SCL CMB01 a PercentIron 7439-89-6 03930 USGS SCL PLA20 0.2–5.0 PercentLead 7439-92-1 03952 USGS SCL AA095 1.0–25 mg/kg

Lithium 7439-93-2 03939 USGS SCL PLA20 5.0–50 mg/kg

Magnesium 7439-95-4 03932 USGS SCL PLA20 5.0 PercentManganese 7439-96-5 03951 USGS SCL PLA20 a mg/kg

Mercury 7439-97-6 03934 USGS SCL CV025 0.01 mg/kg

Molybdenum 7439-98-7 03947 USGS SCL PLA20 1.0–50 mg/kg

Nickel 7440-02-0 03937 USGS SCL PLA20 25–50 mg/kg

Nitrogen na 03953 USGS SCL CMB01 a Percent

Organic carbon na 03923 USGS SCL CMB01 a Percent

Percent of sediment less than 63 micrometers na 69600 USGS SCL na 1.0 Percent

Phosphorus 7723-14-0 03946 USGS SCL PLA20 1.0 mg/kg

Potassium 7440-09-7 03935 USGS SCL PLA20 0.5–5.0 PercentSelenium 7782-49-2 03928 USGS SCL HY017 0.3–5.0 mg/kg

Silver 7440-22-4 03922 USGS SCL AA095 0.5–26.0 mg/kg

Sodium 7440-23-5 03943 USGS SCL PLA20 1.5–5.0 PercentStrontium 7440-24-6 03944 USGS SCL PLA20 a mg/kg

Sulfur 7704-34-9 03945 USGS SCL PLA20 a PercentThallium 7440-28-0 03940 USGS SCL PLA20 50–2,500 mg/kg

Tin 7440-31-5 03931 USGS SCL PLA20 1.0–50 mg/kg

Titanium 7440-32-6 03948 USGS SCL PLA20 0.01–0.5 PercentUranium 7440-61-1 03936 USGS SCL PLA20 50–2,500 mg/kg

Vanadium 7440-62-2 03924 USGS SCL PLA20 5.0–25 mg/kg

Zinc 7440-66-6 03942 USGS SCL PLA20 20 mg/kg

1Range in reporting levels for that analyte, analyzed by that method and laboratory. Reporting level is defined as the concentration set by a laboratory and used for reporting analytical results that are 

determined to be less than the detection level.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DANIEL W. FAERFERS and KATJA

FAERFERS,

NO. CIV. S 04-2690 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a Nevada

Corporation, individually and

as successor to CAVIAR

CREATOR, INC., an Oregon

Corporation,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On November 4, 2005, Plaintiff Daniel Faerfers filed an Ex

Parte Application seeking to modify this Court’s Order that he be

deposed in Sacramento, California on November 7, 2005. Plaintiff

has requested that his deposition be continued to December 8,

2005 based on an acute illness. 

The Court finds that good cause has been shown and,

accordingly, orders that Plaintiff’s deposition be taken on

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 77 Filed 11/10/05 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

December 7 and 8, 2005, in Sacramento California. The Court 1

notes, however, that further requests by Plaintiff to modify the

taking of his deposition will not be looked upon favorably absent

extraordinary circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 77 Filed 11/10/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 quarterly report of Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
--------------------------
zKenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
September 20, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
(Reap. Dec. 10412)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 601.

(Decided January 2, 1963)

*Tomplcins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Gwilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

RichaRdsoN, Judge:

The merchandise which is the subject of re-appraisement appeal consists of coal-tar dyes that were exported from England and entered at Cincinnati, Ohio. The appeal was submitted for decision upon a stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff, and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, subject to the approval of the court, that the merchandise under appeal consists of Bromo Cresol Green and Bromo Thymol Blue which are coal tar colors and *352subject to valuation upon the basis of American Selling Prices as set forth in Section 402(e), Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> That at the time of exportation the said American Selling Prices for said coal tar colors were as follows:

> American Selling Price

> Item (U.S. Dollars) per 25 grams, packed

> Bromo Cresol Green_$49.00 less 40%, less 1%

> Bromo Thymol Blue_$24.75 less 40%, less 1%

On the agreed facts, I find that American selling price, as that value is defined in 19 U.S.O.A., section 1401a(e) (section 402(e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise and that, at the time of exportation of such merchandise, said price for Bromo Cresol Green was $49 per 25 grams, packed, less 40 per centum, less 1 per centum, and for Bromo Thymol Blue said price was $24.75 per 25 grams, packed, less 40 per centum, less 1 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

DEMIANTRA M. CLAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2367 DFL CMK P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve objections to the

December 13, 2005 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 4, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve objections to the December 13, 2005 findings and recommendations. 

DATED: January 12, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

clay 04cv2367.111

Case 2:04-cv-02367-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of International Monetary Systems, Ltd. ("Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), I, Donald M. Mardak, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Donald M. Mardak
 Donald M. Mardak
 Principal Executive Officer
 
 April 1, 2010
 
  
  This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required 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.
No. 48556.

#### Protest 785064-G of Reichard Coulston, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The merchandise is crude earth. The customs inspector reported that the bags bear a tag which is marked “Czecho Slovakia” but the bags themselves were not stenciled. It appeared from the record that the plaintiff made no effort to establish that the tags would not become removed from the bags when they were opened. The evidence was therefore held insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision. The protest was overruled. *United States*v. *Monteverde & Parodi, Inc.*(26 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 2) cited.
September 15, 2015

Dear Mr. Spurlock:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2313). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing,rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 9/29/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Gravesandy, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 563]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered August 12, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing the conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, since criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was not among the counts submitted to the jury at a prior trial on the indictment, resulting in a partial verdict, it was fundamental error for the court to submit that count to the jury at the instant trial *(see, People v Williams,*133 AD2d 717, 718-719; *People v Anderson, 111*AD2d 124).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see, People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10; *People v Sanchez,*86 NY2d 27). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.
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

ROBERT GALLEGOS, SR., No. CIV-S-04-2741 MCE/GGH P 

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM CAREY, ET AL., 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. 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 August 16, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 10/17/05 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

Neither party has 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 16, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Further proceedings in this case are stayed pending the

California Supreme Court’s resolution of the petition for writ of

habeas corpus filed by petitioner in Case No. S136199; and

3. This stay will remain in effect until 30 days following

the entry of a final order by the California Supreme Court in

Case No. S136199.

DATED: October 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 26 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2