alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.19 - AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN GEOWORKS AND
DAVID GRANNAN DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2000


                            [LETTERHEAD OF GEOWORKS]


November 21, 2000

Dave Grannan
Chief Executive Officer
Geoworks Corporation
960 Atlantic Avenue
Alameda, CA  94501

Re: extension of employment agreement dated January 10, 1999

Dear Dave:

     This  letter  will   memorialize  our  agreement  to  extend  your  current
employment  agreement by two years. We affirm all of the terms and conditions of
our letter agreement dated January 10, 1999, except for the following changes:

     o    The agreement will expire on January 9, 2003.

     o    Executive  and the  Board  have  relegated  the  title  and  duties of
          "President" to another employee of the Company, leaving Executive with
          the title and duties of the "Chief Executive Officer".

     o    Executive's  current annual Base Salary is $240,000;  and  executive's
          bonus target is 35% quarterly.

     o    Executive has received  additional  stock option grants not documented
          in the original agreement.

     Kindly indicate your  acceptance of the foregoing.  The terms were reviewed
and approved at our Compensation committee on November 21, 2000. We look forward
to more great progress.

     Sincerely,

     \s\

     David Neylon
     Chairman of the Board

     Agreed: \s\
             ------------------------
             Dave Grannan
             Chief Executive Office
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 31,
1996 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> 	                 	OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>        	                 	JUL-31-1996
<CASH>               	                            128,626
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       471,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (31,835)
<INVENTORY>                                         398,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,035,281
<PP&E>                                              147,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (113,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,355,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               395,930
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                            171,976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                          722,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,355,967
<SALES>                                           3,008,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3,008,004
<CGS>                                             2,333,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,275,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (269,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (270,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (270,176)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.17)
        



</TABLE>
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Carvin CLAYTON, Appellee.

Nos. 68-431, 68-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20580 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

CASE NAME 

Ardagh Group S.A., et al. 

FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

009356 

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

proceeding the appearance of 

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

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

1:81 counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding, 

Howard Morse (Attorney) 

hmorse@cooley.com 

Megan Browdie (Attorney) 

mbrowdie@cooley.com 

Cooley LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20004 

Phone Number: 202-842-7852 

Fax Number: 202-842-7899 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 

(Howard Morse) 

2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES) 

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being fi led. 

Sazerac Company (Third-Party) 

hmorse@cooley.com 

do Cooley LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20004 

Phone Number: 202-842-7852 

5. DATE SIGNED 

12/9/2013 

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission 

Room H-113 

FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 06, 2001

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 98-8830

________________________

TRACY LEE HOUSEL,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK J. HEAD,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(April 6, 2001)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before DUBINA, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Tracy Lee Housel has petitioned this court for rehearing and has

suggested rehearing en banc. Among other arguments, he points out that the court
2

misspoke in describing the concurring opinion in Devier v. Zant, 3 F.3d 1445 (11th

Cir. 1993), and that the court did not discuss the large body of state-court authority

concerning the treatment of unadjudicated crimes in capital sentencing. We GRANT

the petition for panel rehearing to make two changes to our opinion, which is

published at 238 F.3d 1289.

First, the sentence “But it has never been accepted in any form by a majority of

this court or the Supreme Court,” found on page 1297, is replaced with “But no

Supreme Court majority has ever accepted it, and two judges of this court espoused

it only in dicta.”

Second, the sentence that begins “Perhaps since last a court visited the question

. . .,” also found on page 1297, should begin “Perhaps since last this court or the

Supreme Court visited the question . . . .”

The petition is otherwise DENIED. No member of this panel nor any other

judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled

on rehearing en banc, the suggestion of rehearing en banc is also DENIED.
#### Pentony *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Equity*— Buildings—Extensions *over boundary line*— Cornices—Con*tract.*

On a bill in equity the court will compel the removal of cornices, window sills, decorative ornaments and foundation walls extending beyond the defendant’s line and protruding over the adjoining property, if the protruding portions of the defendant’s building are parts of a permanent structure built up to the division line, and if it appears that by a recorded agreement between the defendant and plaintiffs’ predecessors in title the defendant agreed to remove on thirty days’ notice all projections of the property extending beyond its line, and that such notice was given.

Argued March 23, 1911.

Appeal, No. 64, Jan. T., 1911, *465by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. Term, 1907, No. 703, on bill in equity in case of Joseph Pentony and Patrick McCabe v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

April 24, 1911:

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction to compel the removal of cornices, window sills, ornamental terra cotta and granite bands, foundation walls, etc., on defendant’s building projecting over the plaintiff’s property. Before Ma-gill, J.

From the record it appeared that the extension complained of were parts of a permanent structure built up to the division line. It also appeared that on March 28, 1904, the defendant and the plaintiff’s predecessors in title entered into an agreement, which was recorded, by which the defendant agreed to remove on thirty days’ notice all projections of its property extending beyond its line, and that such notice had been given. The court awarded the injunction.

*Error assigned*was decree awarding an injunction.

*E. J. Sellers,*of *Sellers & Rhoads,*for appellant.

*Daniel C. Donoghue,*with him *M. Hampton Todd,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

The finding of the court below that the defendant has encroached upon the lots belonging to the appellees has not been assigned as error, and they are, therefore, entitled to the order requiring the appellant to abate and remove from their property so much of the foundation or retaining walls as extend beyond the dividing or property line of the premises. The decree requiring the defendant to abate and remove all parts of its building protruding or projecting upon or overhanging the appellees’ premises, *466is but an enforcement of the agreement of March 28,1904, between the appellant and the appellees’ predecessors in title.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.
#### Victor Jara, Appellant, v Bart Electric, Inc., Defendant, and Burchetta F.A., Co., Inc., et al., Respondents. (And Three Third-Party Actions.)

[721 NYS2d 835]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated February 3, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Burchetta F.A., Co., Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated April 26, 1999, as, upon the same jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Morse Diesel, Inc., and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The weight to be accorded to the testimony of the parties’ experts was properly left to the jury *(see, Gray v McParland,*255 AD2d 359). The verdict was based on a fair interpretation of all the evidence presented *(see, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for ap*518pellate review or without merit. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Gold-stein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             302
<SECURITIES>                                    49,276
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,975
<PP&E>                                       2,385,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                 627,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,868,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,572
<BONDS>                                      1,033,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     510,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,868,181
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,895
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,631
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        


</TABLE>
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

****

****

David Dodd 
  MDM House Cnr. Hendrik Verwoerd & Will Scarlett Road, Randberg
  PO Box 3088, Cresta, 2118 RSA
  daved@mdm-eng.co.za



US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, David Dodd, Fellow of the SAIMM, certify that I have read
  the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that
  there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical
  Report or that the written disclosure in the Form 40F of Great Basin Gold Ltd.
  contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in Technical Report
  Burnstone Gold Project Pre-feasibility Study Area 1  Executive Summary
  dated November 2004.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 7 day of April, 2006.



"David Dodd"

|David Dodd, SAIMM
|-----------------

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors

Vital Signs, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation of our reports dated November 29, 2005 included in this Form 10-K, on the consolidated financial statements of Vital Signs, Inc. as of September 30, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the three years ended September 30, 2005 and on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2005, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-40586, 33-43702, 33-47298, 33-73800, 333-09705, 333-37927, 333-111807 and 333-111808).

 

 

| **GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP**New York, New York |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| December 14, 2005                                 |   |   |   |

 

 

----
#### Janice Fitzgerald et al., Respondents, v Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Robert C. Tozer, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 253]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Robert Cole Tozer, as administrator of the estate of Frank J. Sardone, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated March 16, 2001, as granted his motion for additional discovery only to the extent of directing the injured plaintiff to submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of his motion for additional discovery made more than 20 days after a note of issue was filed, the appellant had *482to demonstrate that “unusual or unanticipated circumstances developed] subsequent to the filing of [the] note of issue and certificate of readiness which require[d] additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice” (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; *see, Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini,*265 AD2d 135). With the exception of his request that the injured plaintiff submit to a physical examination by a nephrologist, the appellant failed to satisfy this standard. Ritter, Acting P.J., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
Summary Sheet of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.17 

POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Summary Sheet of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors 

As of January 1, 2014 
  

			
	Cash Retainer:	  	$50,000 per year
		
	 Board Chairman Fees:
	  	$15,000 per year
		
	 Committee Chairman Fees:
	  	$7,500 per year
		
	 Committee Membership Fees:
	  	$7,500 per year per Committee
		
	 Restricted Stock Grants:
	  	New Directors: Upon initial election or appointment, a number of restricted shares of Common Stock equal to $50,000 divided by the closing sale price of the Common Stock on the date of initial election or appointment (or,
if such date is not a trading day, on the first trading day thereafter) as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, vesting (i) if the new director is elected by stockholders at an annual meeting of stockholders for a three year term, on the
last full day of such new director’s term, and (ii) for all other new directors, on the third anniversary of election or appointment.
		
		  	Continuing Directors: On the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, a number of restricted shares of Common Stock equal to $50,000 divided by the closing sale price of the Common Stock on the date of initial election
or appointment as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, vesting in four equal quarterly installments commencing three months after the annual meeting
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12363]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-18-026]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: June 15, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1103 (Second Review) (Activated Carbon from 
China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its 
determination and views of the Commission by June 27, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 5, 2018.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-12363 Filed 6-5-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                   1,072,628,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      49,187,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           313,509,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            20,621,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              3,094,696,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   3,072,919,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     3,085,655,000
<LOANS>                                 20,661,422,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                282,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          29,618,841,000
<DEPOSITS>                              24,068,651,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             2,159,099,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        334,798,000
<LONG-TERM>                                502,666,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   131,251,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,422,376,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          29,618,841,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                            886,122,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          200,112,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            18,051,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         1,104,285,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         461,065,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         528,727,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                      575,558,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               28,201,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             514,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            433,023,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            299,954,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 299,954,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               198,006,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.44
<LOANS-NON>                                117,122,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                34,270,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            13,539,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           253,248,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               37,265,000
<RECOVERIES>                                17,796,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          282,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       282,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    282,856,000
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7293

PETRA E. HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CAROL CALDWELL; MACK JARVIS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-97-717-5-H)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Petra E. Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petra E. Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Hernandez has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Hernandez v. Caldwell, No. CA-97-717-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 18,

2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny

Hernandez’s motions for appointment of counsel and formal briefing.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED