alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                                FOURTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                 BIRDS EYE FOODS EXCESS BENEFIT RETIREMENT PLAN

      This  Amendment  is  adopted  by Birds  Eye  Foods,  Inc.,  a  corporation
organized and existing  under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware
(sometimes referred to herein as the "Employer").

                                   WITNESSETH

      WHEREAS,  the  Employer  had  adopted the BIRDS EYE FOODS  EXCESS  BENEFIT
RETIREMENT PLAN (the "Plan") which was amended and restated  effective  December
1, 2000, and

      WHEREAS,  in  accordance  with  Section 6.1 of the Plan,  the Employer has
reserved  the right  pursuant to the  provisions  of the Plan to amend it at any
time, and

      WHEREAS,  it is the  intent of the Plan,  as  stated in its  Preamble,  to
provide  benefits  that  would  have  accrued  under the Birds Eye Foods  Master
Salaried  Retirement Plan except for the limitations under Section 401(a)(17) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and

      WHEREAS,  the Birds Eye Foods Master  Salaried  Retirement Plan provides a
pre-retirement death benefit to the surviving spouse of a vested participant who
dies  either  before  or after  the date the  participant  becomes  eligible  to
commence benefits under the plan, and

      WHEREAS, in order to clarify current  administrative  procedure related to
providing a  pre-retirement  death  benefit in the event of death before age 55,
the Employer now wishes to amend the Plan,




<PAGE>

NOW,  THEREFORE,  Section IV (Death  Benefits  Payable) is amended by  replacing
Section 4.1 with the following:

4.1   If a vested participant should die before commencing  benefits  hereunder,
      the participant's  surviving spouse shall receive a benefit  determined in
      accordance with Section III, as if the participant had retired on the date
      of his death,  elected a Surviving Spouse Annuity,  commenced  receiving a
      benefit on the first of the month  coincident  with or next  following the
      later of his date of death or when the participant would have attained age
      55, and died the following day.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  this  Amendment  has been  executed  this 9th day of
December, 2005.

                                         BIRDS EYE FOODS, INC.

                                         By: \s\ Lois Warlick-Jarvie
                                         Title: Vice President Human Resources
#### Cleveland Lee JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 13, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Cleveland Lee Johnson sought relief from a sentence of death by filing a petition pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., and appeals the denial of that petition. The relief he sought has since been afforded him by the Supreme Court of Florida in In re Baker et al., Fla.1972, 267 So.2d 331. See also Barlow v. State, Fla.1972, 267 So.2d 822, holding that Witherspoon1 objections are rendered immaterial by Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346.

This appeal is now moot, and is accordingly

Dismissed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968).
Exhibit 10.37**CYBERONICS, INC.****OFFICER STOCK OPTION PLAN AGREEMENT****I.** **NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT**     **William Steven Jennings**     You have been granted a Nonstatutory Stock Option to purchase Common Stock of the Company,subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as follows:       Date of Grant June 2, 2003       Vesting Commencement Date June 2, 2003       Exercise Price per Share $18.94       Total Number of Shares Granted 150,000       Total Exercise Price $2,841,000       Term/Expiration Date: August 23,2011       Vesting Schedule:       This Option shall vest and may be exercised, in whole or in part, in accordance with thefollowing schedule:     1/60th of the Shares subject to the Option shall vest each month after the VestingCommencement Date, so that the Option shall be fully vested five (5) years from the Date of Grant,subject to the Optionee continuing to be a Service Provider on such dates.     Termination Period     This Option may be exercised for ninety (90) days after Optionee ceases to be a ServiceProvider in accordance with Section 7 of this Agreement. Upon the death or Disability of theOptionee, this Option may be exercised for twelve (12) months after the Optionee ceases to be aService Provider in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of thisAgreement. In no event shall thisOption be exercised later than the Term/Expiration Date provided.
 

 
**II.** **AGREEMENT**     1. Definitions. As used herein, the following definitions shall apply:          (a) “Agreement” means this stock option agreement between the Company andOptionee evidencing the terms and conditions of this Option.          (b) “Applicable Laws” means the requirements relating to the administration of stockoptions under U.S. state corporate laws, U.S. federal and state securities laws, the Code, anystockexchange or quotation system on which the Common Stock is listed or quoted and the applicablelaws of any foreign country or jurisdiction that may apply to this Option.          (c) “Board” means the Board of Directors of the Company or any committee of theBoard that has been designated by the Board to administer thisAgreement.          (d) “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.          (e)“Common Stock” means the common stock of the Company.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8413-8414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4520]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OR34-1-6136b, OR51-7266b, OR58-7273b; FRL-5680-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
revisions to Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is proposing 
to approve revisions to Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, 
Divisions 21 through 24, 26, 27, 30, and 34 submitted to EPA on May 28, 
1993, a revision to Division 22 submitted to EPA on September 27, 1995, 
and revisions to Division 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, and 30 submitted to EPA 
on October 8, 1996, to satisfy the requirements of section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 51.
    In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision 
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for 
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse 
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
March 27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston,

[[Page 8414]]

Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality, 
at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at the following locations: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 6th Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW 
Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Woo, Office of Air Quality, 
(OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: January 15, 1997.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-4520 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,371
<SECURITIES>                                     1,065
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                       338
<INVENTORY>                                      1,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,923
<PP&E>                                          43,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,962
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,659
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,006
<SALES>                                        110,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,402
<CGS>                                           73,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (964)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,502)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)




</TABLE>
#### In re FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.710.

No. 49355-D.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 30, 1977.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, the Court on its own motion initiates this proceeding to consider revision of Rule 3.710 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which would have the effect of' eliminating all presentence investigations in cases in which the death penalty may be imposed. It is proposed that Rule 3.710 be amended by adding at the end a new sentence to read:

> “This rule shall not apply in any case where a defendant has been found guilty of a capital crime.”

Section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1975), enumerates statutory criteria by which trial judges and advisory juries shall determine whether a sentence of death, or life imprisonment, is appropriate for persons convicted of a capital crime. The United States Supreme Court has upheld this statute on the basis that the discretion inherent in the sentencing process is controlled by these statutory criteria. *Proffitt v. Florida,*428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976).

This Court now invites comment by all interested persons as to whether presen-tence investigation reports should be made available to the sentencing judge in any capital case, in light of the statutory considerations contained in Section 921.141. Not later than January 15, 1978, any interested person may comment on the proposed Rule and request to appear at an oral argument on the proposed Rule to be held on February 22, 1978.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARNOLD STUDIVANT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00164

- RDB

- 1; 1:18

- cv - 03248

- RDB )

Submitted : May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Arnold Studivant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arnold Studivant seeks to appeal a di strict court order that he characterizes as a denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed . R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Studivant seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order; rather, it merely granted Studivant additional time t o provide information regarding equitable tolling of the limitations period for § 2255 claims. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Nancy HENDON and Kenneth Hendon, her husband, Appellants, v. STANLEY HOME PRODUCTS, INC., a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

Jerry A. Burns, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, and James E. Tribble, Miami, for Stanley Home Products, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dun-wody & Cole, Miami and Karl B. Block, Jr., for Owens Illinois, Inc., appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

*554CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

By a complaint as amended the appellant alleged the purchase in March of 1964 of a glass coffee pot, from the appellee dealer Stanley Home Products, Inc.; that when the item was first used as intended, on June 22, 1964, the bottom of the coffee pot “fell out” causing burns to the appellant, for which injury she sought damages, charging liability on implied warranty of fitness.

The appellee dealer answered and moved for summary judgment on the asserted ground that the complaint showed on its face the statute of limitations had run, relying on the three year statute § 95.11(5) (e).

The trial court granted summary judgment for said defendant on the authority of Creviston v. General Motors Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 755. In that case an electric refrigerator was purchased in February of 1962. On December 2, 1966, when the plaintiff was opening the refrigerator, the upper hinge of the door came apart and the door fell off causing the injuries for which recovery was there sought on the basis of breach of warranty of fitness. The complaint in the Creviston case was filed on April 5, 1967, which was more than three years after the date of purchase, but within three years of the date the door fell off.

In Creviston, the Second District Court of Appeal, affirming the trial court, held the statute of limitations began to run on the date of purchase rather than on the date of malfunction and injury.

When the appeal in the present case was heard in this court, the Creviston case was under consideration in the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, and we withheld ruling until the disposition thereof. The Supreme Court has now filed an opinion and judgment, dated July 2, 1969, in the case of Creviston v. General Motors Corp., Fla., 225 So.2d 331, quashing the decision of the district court in 210 So.2d 755. In so ruling the Supreme Court stated: * * * we conclude m an action on implied warranty for personal injury under the facts of this case, the three-year statute of limitations, F.S. Section 95.11(5) (e), F.S.A., begins to run from the time Petitioner first discovered, or reasonably should have discovered the defect constituting the breach of warranty.”

Here, by a complaint filed on June 21, 1967, the action was commenced more than three years after the time of the purchase of the coffee pot but within three years of the time of the alleged malfunction of the pot upon its initial use. Therefore, based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Creviston case, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION of CEO

 

I, Walter J. Zable, certifythat:

 

1)              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cubic Corporation;

 

2)              Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3)              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and wehave:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of June 30, 2005; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s quarter ended June 30,2005 that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5)              Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 
| August 8,  2005                   |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| /s/ W. J. Zable                        |   |
| W. J. Zable                            |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
#### Norman J. PELLEGRIN v. Bernard L. MANALE, M.D.

No. 61387.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Bernard L. Manale, M.D. applying for writ of certiorari. Orleans Parish.

Denied. The judgment is not final.
OSTK-2013.12.31-EX-10.16






Exhibit 10.16
 
Summary of Unwritten Compensation Arrangements
Applicable to Non-Employee Directors of Overstock.com, Inc.




During 2013 the Company paid its non-employee directors $57,000. During 2014 the Company intends to pay its non-employee directors $60,000 annually, at the rate of $15,000 per quarter. The Company also grants restricted stock units to directors, generally at the first Board meeting after the director first joins the Board, and periodically thereafter. In 2013, the Company granted restricted stock units to non-employee directors as follows: 
	
					
	Name
	Grant Date
	 
	Number of Restricted Stock Units Granted

	Allison H. Abraham
	May 8, 2013
	 
	7,500
	


	Barclay F. Corbus
	May 8, 2013
	 
	7,500
	


	Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
	May 8, 2013
	 
	7,500
	


	Samuel A. Mitchell
	May 8, 2013
	 
	7,500
	





(1) Each restricted stock unit represents a contingent right to receive one share of Overstock.com, Inc. common stock. The restricted stock units vest as to 40% at the close of business on the first anniversary of the date of grant, 30% at the second anniversary of the date of grant, and the remaining 30% at the third anniversary of the date of grant. Vested shares are delivered promptly after the restricted stock units vest. 


The Company also reimburses directors for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings. Haverford Valley, L.C., an affiliate of the Company, and certain affiliated entities which make travel arrangements for the Company's executives, also occasionally make travel arrangements for directors to attend Board meetings, for which the Company reimburses Haverford Valley at rates not in excess of commercially available airline rates.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
Eclipse Surgical Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-05009) of our
report dated January 30, 1998, on our audits of the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Eclipse Surgical Technologies, Inc. as of 
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                             COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.




San Jose, California
March 2, 1998

                                        49
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Autry Whited

, * From the 207th District

Court of Comal County,

Trial Court No. CR2008

- 206

.

Vs. No. 11

- 11

- 00 111

- CR * April 30, 2013

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.