alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ex.10.1 2015 ICP Plus






Exhibit 10.1
2015 Incentive Compensation Plan Plus (“ICP+ Plan”)
Eligible Employees:  All senior executives and non-section 16 officers and senior directors of Quidel Corporation (the “Company”) are eligible for participation in the Company’s ICP+ Plan.  
Applicable Period:  The ICP+ Plan applies to performance during the Company’s fiscal year ending December 31, 2015.  
Components of the Plan and Criteria to Fund:  The ICP+ Plan consists of the following two components (1) over achievement of certain revenue performance targets for a key product line; and (2) a related and defined impact goal connected with achievement of such performance targets, each as defined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  Each component of the ICP+ Plan includes payouts based on minimum and a maximum performance targets. The minimum targets serve as the threshold upon which the cash incentive pool will begin to fund for that component.  Achievement of the components at minimum and through the maximum will earn the cash incentive opportunity.  Payout will be calculated along a linear continuum from minimum to maximum with the maximum target serving as the point at which the management team will earn the highest possible cash incentive opportunity under the ICP+ Plan.
The minimum performance target must be met in order for a portion of this cash bonus to be paid relative to any one of the two components.  Each component will be measured separately.  Bonus payout under the ICP+ Plan provides for a cash bonus opportunity of up to 50% of an eligible participant’s annual base salary.   In addition, payout of the cash bonus, as may be applicable, will be based fifty (50%) percent on achievement of the revenue performance targets and fifty (50%) percent on the related and defined impact goal, each as defined by the Compensation Committee.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10222

Summary Calendar

GEORGE CORNIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH/DALLAS COUNTY JAIL; CTMB;

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, Medical Records,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CV-1216

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Cornia, Texas prisoner # 1235882, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his civil right complaint, in which

he claimed, inter alia, that he was improperly administered

Dilantin, an anti-seizure medication. The district court

summarily dismissed the civil rights claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and construed the remaining portion of the

complaint as an application for a writ of habeas corpus, which it

dismissed on limitation grounds. The district court determined
No. 07-10222

-2-

that Cornia’s complaint that he was improperly administrated

Dilantin was time barred by the applicable limitations period.

On appeal, Cornia argues that his claim regarding the

Dilantin was timely or, in the alternative, that the statute of

limitations should be tolled in his favor so as to render his

claim timely. Cornia also asserts that his habeas corpus

petition was timely filed. Cornia, however, has not briefed that

claim, and it is deemed waived. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)

We review the dismissal de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d

371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Cornia’s complaint was not filed

within two years of the date that he learned that he had been

improperly given Dilantin, and it is therefore untimely. See

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989); Piotrowski v. City

of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995); TEX. CIV. PRAC. AND

REM. CODE § 16.003(a). Cornia is not entitled to equitable

tolling of the limitations period. See Fisher v. Johnson, 174

F.3d 710, 715-16 (5th Cir. 1999); Helton v. Clements, 832 F.2d

332, 336 (5th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**539 KA 13-00048** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GUNNER NORTHRUP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (MARSHALL A. KELLY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered December 21, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). We conclude that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is valid ( see generally People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that it encompasses his challenge to the amount of restitution ordered because “the exact amount of restitution was included in the plea agreement” ( People v Thomas , 77 AD3d 1325, 1326, lv denied 16 NY3d 800; see People v Gordon , 43 AD3d 1330, 1331, lv denied 9 NY3d 1006). In any event, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the amount of restitution inasmuch as he did not object to that amount at either the plea proceeding or at the time of sentencing, and he did not request a hearing on that issue ( see People v McCarthy , 83 AD3d 1533, 1534, lv denied 17 NY3d 819; People v Sweeney , 79 AD3d 1789, 1789, lv denied 16 NY3d 900; see also People v Horne , 97 NY2d 404, 414 n 3).

The appeal waiver, however, does not encompass defendant’s contention concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status inasmuch as “[n]o mention of youthful offender status was made before defendant waived his right to appeal during the plea colloquy” ( People v Anderson , 90 AD3d 1475, 1476, lv denied 18 NY3d 991; see People v Jones , 107 AD3d 1611, 1611, lv denied 21 NY3d 1043, reconsideration denied 22 NY3d 956). In any event, “ ‘[h]aving considered the facts and circumstances of this case,’ ” we reject defendant’s contention that County Court abused its discretion in**-2- 539 KA 13-00048** 

denying him youthful offender status ( People v Guppy , 92 AD3d 1243, 1243, lv denied 19 NY3d 961; see People v Potter , 13 AD3d 1191, 1191, lv denied 4 NY3d 889; see generally CPL 720.20 [1] [a]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant a youthful offender ( see generally People v Shrubsall , 167 AD2d 929, 930-931). Finally, the valid appeal waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255; cf. People v Adams , 94 AD3d 1428, 1429, lv denied 19 NY3d 970; see generally People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Sharwood Dunn, *Respondent, v.*Charles E. Brown, *Appellant.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### Hauser *v.*Goldstein (et al., Appellants).

*85Argued November 13, 1968.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Milton A. Feldman,*with him *Donald M. McCurdy,*and *Townsend, Flliott & Munson,*and *Fox & McCurdy,*for appellant.

*Guy G. deFuria,*with him *deFuria and Larkin,*for appellees.

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing preliminary objections filed by one of three defendants to plaintiffs’ bill in Equity. We agree with the plaintiffs that the instant appeal must be quashed because (1) it is interlocutory and (2) it does not require an account.

Plaintiffs are building contractors who entered into a written agreement (a) with several defendants providing for the construction of a building in Radnor *86Township and (b) with the bank which agreed to finance the construction.

The law is well established that an Order which sustains preliminary objections to a suit in Equity or to an action at law without dismissing the. bill or terminating the action is interlocutory and not appeal-able unless expressly made so by statute, or exceptional circumstances existed. *Basalyga v. Hohensee,*431 Pa. 191, 245 A. 2d 255; *Sullivan v. Philadelphia,*378 Pa. 648, 107 A. 2d 854; *Ahrens v. Goldstein,*376 Pa. 114, 102 A. 2d 164.

The Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 243, §1, as amended by the Act of March 30, 1921, §1, P. L. 60, 12 P.S. §1104, relevantly provides: “In all cases at law or in equity . . . wherein the complainant or plaintiff prays or sues for an account from the defendant or defendants, . . . and on the part of the defendant there is a denial of liability to account, if, upon this preliminary question of liability, the decision or decree, order or judgment, of the court is in favor of the plaintiff *and requires an account,*
      ***
      **then an appeal to the Supreme Court or Superior Court . . . shall be allowed. . . .”

The Order of the Court below does not require an accounting and does not dismiss the bill or terminate the action, and consequently an appeal will not lie.

Appeal quashed.

Italics, ours.
**Exhibit 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm —    KPMG LLP**     The Board of Directors    OpenTV Corp.     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements    (No. 333-74026,No. 333-52180,No. 333-42892,No. 333-37196,No. 333-102944,No. 333-115373,    and    No. 333-130560)    on    Form S-8    and    (No. 333-115374)    on    Form S-3    of OpenTV Corp. of our report dated March 30, 2006, with    respect to the consolidated balance sheet of OpenTV Corp. and    subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and the related    consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity    and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years    ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related financial    statement schedule which report appears in this    December 31, 2006 annual report on    Form 10-K    of OpenTV Corp. /s/  KPMG    LLP     San Francisco, California    March 9, 2007
#### James M. McGuckin, Petitioner *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Office of Administration, Respondent.

*135May 4, 1981:

Argued February 5, 1981,

before Judges Blatt, .Williams, Jr. and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three.

*Ralph B. Pinskey,*for petitioner.

.*Debra K. Wallet,*Assistant Attorney General, with her *John D. Raup,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Opinion by

Judge Williams, Jr.,

Petitioner, James M. McGuckin, appeals from an order of the State Civil Service Commission. That order declined to grant the petitioner a hearing on his allegations that an action taken over ten years ago by the Executive Board of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was a “demotion” and a “personnel action” which discriminated against him.

McGuckin appealed to the Commission on November 8, 1979 complaining of events that occurred in October of 1969. In October of 1969, the Executive Board modified the salary ranges of several positions, .including that of the Director, State Stores Auditing Program, from pay range 38 to pay range 40. The Board also modified the salary range of the Field Auditor Y position, from pay range 37 to pay range 40.

*136At some point prior to October, 1969, petitioner had been promoted from the Auditor V position to the position of Director, State Stores Auditing Program. He contends that as a result of the 1969 modification, the two positions occupied and continue to occupy the same pay range, which has the effect of “taking away” Ms promotion. He further contends that because the pay range modification increased the pay range for the Director by two pay grades but only increased by three grades the pay range for the Auditor V position, petitioner has suffered the loss of rank or status. The State Civil Service Commission determined, however, that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We agree.

Section 951 of the Civil Service Act1 grants authority to the Commission to hold hearings on appeals to the Commission filed within *twenty calendar days*of the alleged violation. The law is clear that the twenty-day limitation prescribed by the Civil Service Act for an appeal to the Civil Service Commission is mandatory and must be strictly enforced. *Marks v. Civil Service Commission,*7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 414, 299 A.2d 691 (1973); *Ellis v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,*33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 354, 381 A.2d 1325 (1978).

The instant petitioner’s appeal to the Commission was taken more than 10 years from the date of the events complained of and is clearly untimely. *Stewart v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare,*48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 44, 408 A.2d 1188 (1979).

We, therefore, affirm the order of the Commission in its dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal for want of jurisdiction.

*137Order

And Now, the 4th day of May, 1981, the order of the State Civil Service Commission entered January 4,1980 in Appeal No. 2942 is affirmed.

Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

1

 Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, *as amended,*added by Section 27 of the Act of August 27, 1963, P.L. 1257, *as amended,*71 P.S. §741.951.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 Nos. 333-37914 and 333-114866 of Genius Products, Inc. and Subsidiaries
of our report dated March 19, 2004, with respect to the financial statements
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Genius Products, Inc. and
Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                        /s/ Cacciamatta Accountancy Corporation

                                            CACCIAMATTA ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION


Irvine, California
August 12, 2004
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 May 13, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Paul E. HendersonDate
    
    Paul E. HendersonChief Accounting Officer
Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,
the Manager of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC(principal financial officer)
No. 65573.

#### American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/7670,etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cutback asphalt the same in all material respects as that the subject of *American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2188), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 51063.

#### Protest 122486-K of Swift & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe', J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise ■consist of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2}i*percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese. The protest was sustained to this extent.
**Summary of EPA Meeting with C12 Energy** May 10, 2012

On Thursday , May

10, 2012, representatives of EPA met with Mr. Barclay Rogers of C12 Energy to discuss the status of the August 8, 2011 proposed rule. Topics included the nature of C12 Energy's business and interest in the proposed regulation, the comments that C12 Energy had submitted to EPA in response to the proposed rule, and the status of the pending final rule. Mr. Rogers did not submit any written materials at this meeting.
Attendees : Ros s Elliott, EPA/ORCR Melissa Kaps, EPA/ORCR Bruce Kobelski , EPA/ OGWDW Barclay Rogers , C12 Energy
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*William J. Woods *v.*Isaac W. Crissey, *as Comptroller, etc.*

Order denying motion for *mandamus*affirmed.
#### George A. Ferguson *v.*Maria M. Fitch.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Opinion by Bockes, J.
#### In the Matter of Ferdinand S. Hahn, an Attorney.

Order entered disbarring respondent. Opinion by Brady, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8445 

To amend title 38, United States Code, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who serve 

in the Israeli Defense Forces for certain protections relating to such 

service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2024 

Mr. RESCHENTHALER (for himself and Mr. MILLER of Ohio) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, and the 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for the eligibility of United States citizens who serve in the Israeli 

Defense Forces for certain protections relating to such 

service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS 

4 SERVING IN THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE 

5 FOR BENEFITS UNDER USERRA AND THE 

6 SCRA. 

7 (a) USERRA.— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8445 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter IV of chapter 43 

2 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by add3 ing at the end the following new section: 

4 ‘‘§ 4336. Treatment of service in Israeli Defense 

5 Forces 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this chapter, to 

7 the extent practicable, the service of a citizen of the 

8 United States in the Israeli Defense Forces shall be treat9 ed in the same manner as service in the uniformed serv10 ices. 

11 ‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall prescribe 

12 such regulations as may be necessary to implement this 

13 section.’’. 

14 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec15 tions at the beginning of such chapter is amended 

16 by inserting after the item relating to section 4335 

17 the following new item: 

‘‘4336. Treatment of service in Israeli Defense Forces.’’. 

18 (b) SCRA.—Section 104 of the Servicemembers Civil 

19 Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 3914) is amended— 

20 (1) by striking ‘‘A citizen’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 

21 IN GENERAL.—A citizen’’; and 

22 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub23 section: 

24 ‘‘(b) SERVICE IN IDF.—A citizen of the United 

25 States who is serving with the Israeli Defense Forces is 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8445 IH

1 entitled to the relief and protections provided under this 

2 Act if that service is similar to military service as defined 

3 in this Act. The relief and protections provided to such 

4 citizen shall terminate on the date of discharge or release 

5 from such service.’’. 

6 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

7 section shall apply with respect to service performed on 

8 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 51054.

#### Protests 993698-G, etc., of Pennsylvania Macaroni Co., Inc., et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Crossland Savings Bank, Plaintiff, v Konstantinos Lambrakos et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants, and Stephen R. Pergolizzi, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 494]

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, Stephen R. Pergolizzi, the former receiver of the mortgaged property, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated May 25, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendants Konstanti*584nos Lambrakos, Demetrios Karellas, and Anthony Latona for leave to continue prosecuting an action against him in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entitled *Konstantinos Lambrakos, Demetrios Karellas, and Anthony Latona v Stephen R. Pergolizzi,*Index No. 10916/93.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants leave to continue prosecuting a negligence action against the appellant, the former court-appointed receiver of the mortgaged property *(see, e.g., Copeland v Salomon,*56 NY2d 222). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00287

- CV

S HERRY D ENSMORE

, T HOMAS J.

L OUGHREY J R

., R OBERT C. H ANKINS

II, AND M ATTHEW L. G ALLITON

, Appellants

V

.

J. H ORACE M C C ARLEY

, D EBBY

M C C ARLEY

, AND L ONESTAR

D OODLES

, LLC , Appellees §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV

- 16

- 1104)

March 19, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s fin al j ud gment. It is ordered that the final judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

This court taxes all costs inc urred related to this appeal agai nst appellant s

Sherry Densmore, Thomas J. Loughrey Jr., Robert C. Hankins II, and Matthew L.

Galliton , for w hich let exe cution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By / s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129064 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129064 COA: 252396 Oakland CC: 02-186761-FH DONALD MARTIN SHEARS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 24, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk