alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex1077k123114.htm




Exhibit 10.77







SUMMARY OF COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS


WITH DIRECTORS AND NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS







Director Compensation.  Each director who is not an employee or officer of the Company will receive the following compensation for his services as director in 2015:


 



	
●   

	
annual base compensation of $20,000;







 



	
●   

	
$2,000 per regularly scheduled board meeting attended;







 



	
●   

	
$750 per regularly scheduled Audit Committee meeting attended;







 



	
●   

	
$25,000 per year for service as the Audit Committee chairman;







 



	
●   

	
$25,000 per year for service as the Compensation Committee chairman;







 



	
●   

	
$20,000 per year for service as the Nomination and Governance Committee chairman;







 



	
●   

	
a discretionary grant, as authorized the board of directors, of equity awards consisting of either options or restricted stock pursuant to the Company’s 2015 Performance Incentive Plan, if approved by the stockholders at the 2015 annual meeting; and







 



	
●   

	
reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board meetings.












Named Executive Officer Compensation.  The Company’s executive compensation program has several elements, all determined by individual and Company performance.







Base Salary Compensation







Base salaries for the Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers in 2015 have been established by reviewing a number of factors, including responsibilities, experience, demonstrated performance, potential for future contributions, and the level of salaries associated with similar positions at businesses that compete with the Company and other competitive factors.  Base salary levels for named executive officers in 2015, which are unchanged from 2014 levels, have been determined as follows:








	
David N. Pierce

	
$390,000


	
Thomas B. Lovejoy

	
262,500


	
Andrew W. Pierce

	
294,000


	
Jerzy B. Maciolek

	
294,000


	
Clay Newton

	
225,000












Other Compensation







In addition to his base salary, each of the named executive officers is eligible to participate in the following:


 



	
●   

	
the Company’s various stock option and incentive plans, under which stock options or other equity compensation may be granted from time to time as determined by the board of directors, and which may be based on factors such as the level of base pay and individual performance;







 



	
●   

	
short-term incentive compensation, which is determined from time to time by the board of directors, under which cash bonuses in varying amounts may be granted based on the Company and individual achieving predetermined goals;







 



	
●   

	
the Company’s 401(k) profit-sharing plan and other health and benefit plans generally available to Company employees; and







 



	
●   

	
other compensation arrangements as determined by the board of directors.
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

MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER, No. 2:04-cv-2509-MCE-KJM-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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 March 14, 2006, 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 (20) days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-02509-MCE -KJM Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 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

Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 14, 2006,

are adopted in full; 

2. This action is dismissed.

DATED: April 21, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02509-MCE -KJM Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 4.09


Form of Designation of Beneficiary


STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
OUTSIDE DIRECTORS RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT PLAN


Designation of Beneficiary




	
				
	Participant’s Name:
	 
	SSN:
	 




Pursuant to the provisions of the State Auto Financial Corporation Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan (the “Plan”) permitting designation of a beneficiary or beneficiaries by a participant, I hereby designate the following person or persons (which may be an entity(ies) or a trust) as primary and secondary beneficiaries of any benefits under the Plan payable by reason of my death:  
	
	
	Primary Beneficiary: 
Name:_______________________________________________________________________________________
Relationship:_________________________________________________________________________________
Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________


Social Security Number, if known:________________________________________




	
	
	Secondary Beneficiary:
Name:______________________________________________________________________________________
Relationship:_________________________________________________________________________________
Address:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Social Security Number, if known:________________________________________




I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE OR CHANGE ANY BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION.  I HEREBY REVOKE ALL PRIOR DESIGNATIONS (IF ANY) OF BENEFICIARIES AND SECONDARY BENEFICIARIES.
The Company shall pay all sums payable under the Plan by reason of my death to the primary beneficiary, if he or she survives me, and if no primary beneficiary survives me, then to the secondary beneficiary.  If no named beneficiary survives me, then the Company shall pay all amounts in accordance with the terms of the Plan.  NOTE:  Unless you provide otherwise in completing this designation, the Company shall pay all sums payable to more than one beneficiary equally to the living beneficiaries.
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	Date of this Designation
	 
	Signature of Participant
No. 46737.

#### Protest 38907-K of Harry J. Newton (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Prom the evidence presented it was found that the papers in question admittedly did not reach the collector’s office within the specified time. The court was therefore unable to grant the plaintiff any relief.
(Reap. Dec. 8529)

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 763037, etc.

(Decided January 20, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto—

> That the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, cover artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems or parts thereof, or articles wholly or in chief value of the same imported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:

> *5171. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing-Appraised value less 3% packing included.

> 2. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, and parts thereof wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_Appraised value less 5 % packing included.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> 1. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, or parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of threads, filaments, or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing. . . Appraised value less 3% packing included.

> 2. Artificial flowers, fruits, leaves, stems, and parts thereof, wholly or in chief value of materials other than threads, filaments, or yarn and articles wholly or in chief value of the foregoing_ Appraised value less *5%*packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 18-BS-727

IN RE KIFLOM T. MELES

Respondent. Board Docket No. 18-PD-018

Bar Registration Number 496336 DDN: 205-15, et al.

BEFORE: Easterly and McLeese, Associate Judges; and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED – July 19, 2018)

On consideration of the affidavit of Kiflom T. Meles, wherein he consents to 

disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, 

§ 12, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the Report and 

Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is

ORDERED that the said Kiflom T. Meles is hereby disbarred by consent, 

effective October 1, 2018. 

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly 

disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon 

written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman 

of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving 

him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain 

rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply 

therewith.

PER CURIAM
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 1 8 , 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00802

- CV

Mayukh Suri, Appellant

v.

Richa Gulati, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND K ELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l cou rt on August 6, 2019

. Appellan t has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees that the

motion should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal.

A ppellant shall pay all c osts relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 10.8(B)






Exhibit 10.8(B)
AMENDMENT TO
ACHAOGEN, INC. 2003 STOCK PLAN 
 
This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Achaogen, Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Plan (as amended from time to time, the “2003 Plan”), is made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Achaogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of December 18, 2014 (the “Effective Date”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the 2003 Plan.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2003 Plan and the Achaogen, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan; 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15 of the 2003 Plan, the Board has the authority to amend the 2003 Plan at any time; and 


WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the 2003 Plan to provide for accelerated vesting of awards granted under the 2003 Plan upon certain qualifying terminations following a change in control of the Company.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2003 Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date: 


AMENDMENT


		
	1.
	Section 13(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following provision to the end of Section 13(c):


“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in the event that, within the twelve (12) month period immediately following a Change in Control, an Optionee experiences a Termination of Service (as defined in the Achaogen, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the ‘2014 Plan’)) by the Company for other than Cause (as defined in the 2014 Plan) or by an Optionee for Good Reason (as defined in the 2014 Plan), then the vesting and, if applicable, exercisability of that number of Shares equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the then-unvested Shares subject to the outstanding Options or Stock Purchase Rights held by such Optionee shall accelerate upon the date of such Termination of Service.”
		
	2.
	This Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the 2003 Plan.  Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the 2003 Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 304]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3278]]

Public Law 111-304
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post Office 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 14, 2010 -  [H.R. 6237]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TOM KONGSGAARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom 
Kongsgaard Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 14, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6237:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Nov. 16, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 2, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.

November 9, 2005

                            /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                        -----------------------------------------------------
                        Stephen A. Hozie
                        Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 The caption is amended to reflect that Defendant Credit

Solutions Corporation was dismissed by Order filed May 6, 2005,

Defendant Equifax Information Services was dismissed by Order filed July

15, 2005, and Defendant HSBC Bank Nevada was dismissed by order filed

August 30, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENDRA S. FONG and )

MICHAEL W. FONG, )

) CIV. S-04-1929 GEB KJM

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

)

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.;)

AND TRANS UNION LLC;1 )

)

Defendants. )

)

Pursuant to the separate stipulations of the parties filed

on August 30 and September 12, 2005, this action is dismissed with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

Dated: September 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01929-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 09/13/05 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

Case 2:04-cv-01929-GEB -KJM Document 49 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOSEPH DUNPHY JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2623 DFL KJM P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 9, 2006, the court recommended that this

action be dismissed due to petitioner’s failure to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to respondent’s July 18, 2005 motion to dismiss. Petitioner has filed objections to the

March 9, 2006 findings and recommendations in which petitioner indicates that he never

received a copy of respondent’s motion to dismiss or the court’s October 12, 2005 order directing

petitioner to either file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. In light of petitioner’s

filing, the court will place a temporary hold on the findings and recommendations and provide

petitioner an opportunity to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 11 Filed 03/29/06 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent shall re-serve a copy of his July 18, 2005 motion to dismiss upon

petitioner and file a certificate of service with the court; and

2. Petitioner shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the

motion to dismiss within thirty days of service of the motion. If petitioner fails to comply with

this order, the court will submit March 9, 2006 findings and recommendations to the district

court judge assigned to this case for consideration.

DATED: March 28, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

dunp2623.ext

Case 2:04-cv-02623-DFL -KJM Document 11 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 9,807.

#### MORGAN v. ROWAN.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 148.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term. 1818.

Taxation — Master and Servant — Poll-Tax op Servant — Liability op Master.

The by-law of Alexandria requiring the master to pay a poll-tax for his journeymen, is not repugnant to the general law of the land, and is authorized by the charter.

Trespass for taking f“ven pairs of shoes as a distress for not pay in. r a poll-tax due to the corporation for sundry journeymen shoemakers. employed by the plaintiff. Upon a special verdict the question was as to the power of the corporation to compel the master to pay a poll-tax for his journeymen. Corp. By-Laws, pp. 5, 52, 93, §§ 3, 12.

■■ E. J. Lee, for plaintiff.

■ J. D. Simms, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge,

contra.) was of opinion-that the by-law was not contrary to the general law of the land, and was authorized by the charter of the town.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, James A. Yost, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HLI Operating Company, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting that are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       /s/ James A. Yost James A. Yost