alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.2

 

AMENDMENT NO.1 TO LENTUO INTERNATIONAL INC.

 

2010 SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN

 

THIS AMENDMENT NO.1 is made on February 28, 2014 by Lentuo International Inc. (the “Company”), to the 2010 Share Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) adopted by the Company in September, 2010.

 

Section 3(a) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

 

“3. Shares Subject to the Plan

 

(a) Shares Subject to the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the Plan is 30,000,000; plus an annual increase on the first day of each Fiscal Year, commencing with the first Fiscal Year after a Qualifying Public Offering, equal to the lesser of (i) 1.0% of the outstanding Shares on the first day of the Fiscal Year; or (ii) such lesser amount of Shares as determined by the Board. The Shares may be authorized, but unissued or reacquired Ordinary Shares. Shares shall not be deemed to have been issued pursuant to the Plan with respect to any portion of an Award that is settled in cash. Upon payment in Shares pursuant to the exercise of an Award, the number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan shall be reduced only by the number of Shares actually issued in such payment. If a Participant pays the exercise price of an Award through the tender of Ordinary Shares, if Ordinary Shares are tendered or Shares withheld to satisfy any Company withholding obligations, the number of Ordinary Shares so tendered or Shares withheld shall again be available for issuance pursuant to future Awards under the Plan.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, THE
          CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED
          STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW AND THE RELATED NOTES FOR THE NINE
          MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
          BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          9,856
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                      428
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,846
<PP&E>                                          1,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,055
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           40
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,833
<SALES>                                        16,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,577
<CGS>                                           2,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   533
<INCOME-TAX>                                      179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               354
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      354
<EPS-BASIC>                                   $0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $0.08



</TABLE>
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 O'Charley's Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey D. Warne, Chief Executive 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:







1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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







/s/ JEFFREY D. WARNEJeffrey D. WarneChief Executive OfficerMarch 12, 2010
##### 



STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
AND
BONUS AGREEMENT
 THIS STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT AND BONUS
AGREEMENT
 WHEREAS, Schedule A Schedule A
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS, Schedule A on
Schedule A.
 WHEREAS, Schedule A , Schedule A
 NOW THEREFORE,
 1. Increased Exercise Price . Schedule A Schedule A.
 2. Bonus . Schedule A




---



##### 



3. Entire Agreement .
 4. Continuation of Option Agreements .
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 CYBERONICS, INC./s/ John A. RiccardiBy:
    
    John A. RiccardiTITLE:
    
    Vice President, FinanceOPTIONEEBy:
    
    Michael Cheney




---



##### 



SCHEDULE
A
 Number ofUnexercisedOption Shares
    
    Applicable
    
    Increased
    
    Aggregate
    
    PotentialExercise Price
    
    Which Vest After
    
    Measurement
    
    Exercise Price
    
    Increase in
    
    Retention BonusName
    
    Plan
    
    Grant Date
    
    Per Share
    
    12/31/04
    
    Date
    
    Per Share*
    
    Exercise Price
    
    **Cheney, Michael
    
    SEC16 Chene
    
    
    07/06/01
    
    
    $
    15.10
    
    
    
    45,000
    
    
    
    08/14/01
    
    
    $
    1.85
    
    
    $
    83,250.00
    
    
    $
    83,250.00Cheney, Michael
    
    1997 Plan
    
    
    01/24/02
    
    
    $
    12.45
    
    
    
    10,417
    
    
    
    02/12/02
    
    
    $
    2.06
    
    
    $
    21,459.02
    
    
    $
    21,459.02Total
    
    $
    104,709.02
#### Joan Stuart OURSO v. Robert J. OURSO, Jr.

No. 53626.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 5, 1973.

In re: Robert J. Ourso, Jr. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

This writ is granted for the limited purpose of staying the execution of the judgment of contempt and incarceration, which is hereby stayed for a period of ten days or until further orders of a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise the application for writs is not considered. Applicant must first exhaust his remedy in the Court of Appeal. Tolbert v. Thomas, 245 La. 200, 157 So.2d 737 (1963); Moity v. Mahfouz, 242 La. 625, 137 So.2d 514 (1961).
No. 10322.

#### The Western Glass & Paint Co. *v.*Van Cleve.

Decided May 19, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Carr, Stearns & Chamberlain,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Beardsley & Morgan,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7259 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7259

   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2020

 Mrs. McBath (for herself, Mr. Cline, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Mrs. 
    Roby) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents for 
                  Humanity Program to be transferable.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patents for Humanity Program 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFICATES.

    (a) In General.--A holder of an acceleration certificate issued 
pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Program (established in the notice 
entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', published at 77 Fed. 
Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the United 
States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer (including by sale) 
the entitlement to such acceleration certificate to another person.
    (b) Requirement.--An acceleration certificate transferred under 
subsection (a) shall be subject to any other applicable limitations 
under the notice entitled ``Humanitarian Awards Pilot Program'', 
published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor 
thereto.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re Raymond BERGGREN v. Mildred BERGGREN. Ex parte Raymond Berggren.

SC 669.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Jack W. Smith, Dothan, for petitioner.

No brief for respondent.

HEFLIN, Chief Justice.

Petition of Raymond Berggren for Cer-tiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Berggren v. Berggren, 52 Ala.App. 118, 290 So.2d 178.

Writ denied.

COLEMAN, McCALL, FAULKNER and JONES, JJ., concur.
O rder filed February 12 , 201 5



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 3 07

- CR

____ _ ______ 

### BRITNEY NICOLE DOKEY , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10918

- D

O R D E R Appellant, Britney Nicole Dokey
, has filed this app ea l from a judgment revoking her community supervision for the offense of tamp ering with a government al record

. Upon reviewing the record in this case, we have concluded that the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appea l is defective, and we
direct the trial court to amend its certification.
The certification contained in the clerk’s record ref lects that the trial court certified that this is a plea bargain case and that Appellant has no right of appeal.2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). However, despite Appellant’s plea of true and
the parties’ agreement with respect to punishment, this is not a plea bargain case. The Court of Criminal Appeals has explicitly held that Rule 25.2(a)(2) “refers only to plea bargains with regard to guilty pleas, not pleas of true on revocation
motions.” Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005 ). The
Dears court further stated: “Regardless of whether a court feels that a defendant should be ‘bound’ by an agreement on a plea of t rue, the plain language of
Rule 25.2(a)(2) does not contemplate that situation.” Id. Rule 25.2(a)(2) does not
limit Appellant’s right to appeal from the judgment revoking her community supervision

. See id. Thus, the trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal was “defective

. ” See id. at 615; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.1.
T he trial court is directed to enter an amended certification reflect ing that this is not a plea bargain case and that Appellant has a right to appeal , and the district clerk is directed to file in this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended certification

. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 34.5(c)(2), 37.1;
see also Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614. The amended certification is due to be filed in
this court on or before February 26 , 2015.

PER CURIAM

February 12 , 2015 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding,

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Jonathan Emord

 jemord@emord.com

Emord & Associates, P.C.

11808 Wolf Rune Lane

Clifton, VA 20124

Phone Number: 202-466-6937

Fax Number: 202-466-6938

Peter Arhangelsky

 parhangelsky@emord.com

Lou Caputo

 lcaputo@emord.com

Emord & Associates, P.C.

3210 S Gilbert Rd Ste 4

Emord & Associates, P.C.

Chandler, AZ 85286

Phone Number: 602-388-8899

Fax Number: 602-393-4361

ECM BioFilms, Inc. et al. 11/1/2013

ECM Biofilms, Inc.

ECM BioFilms, Inc., et al.

Victoria Place, Suite 225

100 South Park Place

Plainesville, OH 44077

Phone Number: 440-350-1400

Fax Number: 440-350-1444

D09358 (Jonathan W. Emord)

11 01 2013
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7291 

To nullify the effect of the recent executive order that requires Federal 

agencies to share citizenship data. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2020 

Mr. HORSFORD (for himself, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Ms. JUDY

CHU of California, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. 

GALLEGO, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mrs. HAYES, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. NORTON, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. 

ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. SOTO, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. VELA, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mrs. WATSON

COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To nullify the effect of the recent executive order that 

requires Federal agencies to share citizenship data. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RECESSION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of Executive Order 

5 13880 (84 Fed. Reg. 33821; July 11, 2019), entitled 

6 ‘‘Collecting Information About Citizenship Status in ConVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:30 Jul 11, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7291.IH H7291

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7291 IH

1 nection With the Decennial Census’’, are rescinded and 

2 shall have no force or effect. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect as 

4 if enacted on July 11, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
## Summary of Interagency Working Com ments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review.  Subject to Further Policy Re view.

Some interagency commenters have suggested the following clarifying edits:

 Pg 29

Section EE. What are potential impacts on affected states and sources?

The issuance of a SIP call would require an affected state to take action to revise its SIP. That

action by the state may, in turn, affect sources as described below. The states that would

receive a SIP call will in general have options as to exactly how to revise their SIPs. In response

to a SIP call, a state retains broad discretion concerning how to revise its SIP, so long as that

revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Some provisions that may be identified

in a final SIP call, for example an automatic exemption provision, would have to be removed

entirely and an affected source could no longer depend on the exemption to avoid all liability for

excess emissions. Some other provisions, for example a problematic enforcement discretion

provision or affirmative defense provision, could either be removed entirely from the SIP or

retained if revised appropriately, in accordance with EPA’s interpretation of the CAA as

described in the EPA’s SSM Policy. The EPA notes that if a state removes a SIP provision that

pertains to the state's exercise of enforcement discretion, this removal would not affect the

ability of the state to apply discretion in its enforcement program. It would make the exercise of

such discretion case

‐ by

‐ case in nature.

 Pg 47

The EPA believes that creating a narrowly tailored affirmative defense for malfunctions is within

an air agency's authority, and that approving such a provision to make it part of the SIP is within

the EPA's authority. An affirmative defense provision can be a means of striking a reasonable

balance between the requirements of the CAA and the realities and limits of technology. Air

agencies and the EPA must ensure continuous compliance, but must also recognize that, despite

diligent efforts by sources, practical realities there may be limited unforeseen and unavoidable

circumstances that create difficulties in meeting applicable emission limitations continuously.

 Pg 122 Footnote #91

91 By definition, an affirmative defense provision in a SIP provides a source with a defense to

assert in an enforcement proceeding. The source has the ability to establish whether or not it

has met the legal and factual parameters for such affirmative defense, and that question will be

decided by the court or other trier of fact in the proceeding. The relevant circumstances in such

a proceeding would thus include issues relevant to the parameters for affirmative defense

provisions, as enumerated in section VII.B of this notice.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4343]

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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Additions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Additions to Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement 
List a commodity and a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE: March 24, 1997.

ADDRESS: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible 
impact of the proposed actions.
    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of 
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required 
to procure the commodity and service listed below from nonprofit 
agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe 
disabilities.
    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodity and 
service to the Government.
    2. The action does not appear to have a severe economic impact on 
current contractors for the commodity and service.
    3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the commodity and service to the Government.
    4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
46--48c) in connection with the commodity and service proposed for 
addition to the Procurement List.
    Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should 
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they 
are providing additional information. The following commodity and 
service have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for 
production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Service

Janitorial/Custodial

Naval Reserve Center
Kearny, New Jersey
NPA: The First Occupational Center of New Jersey, Orange, New Jersey

Commodity

Strap, Webbing
5340-01-114-7712
NPA: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, Mississippi.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-4343 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
Exhibit 10.12

 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

The following compensation arrangements have been established for the Board of Directors of the Company: All outside directors will receive an annual retainer of $40,000. The chairpersons of Strategic Markets, the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Risk Oversight Committee, and the Nominating/Governance Committee will for these services receive retainers of $70,000, of $20,000, of $20,000, of $15,000, and of $12,500 respectively. Additionally, the individual filling the lead director role will receive a retainer of $50,000. Outside directors also receive a meeting fee of $1,500 for each Committee meeting attended. Outside directors also receive an annual grant of $70,000 of stock. No separate compensation is paid to directors who are also employees of the Company.
254 La. 847

#### Michael L. HYATT v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 50110.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: J. W. McNeely and Jewel D. Mc-Neely applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vernon. 225 So.2d 102.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      Exhibit 12


                               Dean Foods Company
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   26 Weeks Ended
                                                  November 26, 1995
                                                  -----------------

                   <S>                                 <C>
                   Income before taxes                 $50,063
                                                        ------
                   Fixed charges:                       

                       Interest expense                 12,869
                       Debt issue costs                     90
                       Portion of rentals (33%)          4,136
                                                        ------
                       Total fixed charges              17,095
                                                        ------
                   Earnings before taxes and
                       fixed charges                   $67,158
                                                        ======
                   Ratio of earnings to
                       fixed charges                       3.9
                                                        ======   
</TABLE>