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

Exhibit 10.4

  Two Folsom Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105



November 23, 2020




Mark Breitbard    




Dear Mark:


This letter is to confirm the extension of the existing severance provisions, which are outlined in the “Termination/Severance” section of your offer letter dated March 5, 2020 (“Offer Letter”).  The Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors (“the Committee”) has approved the extension of such severance provisions to June 30, 2024 with no other changes to such provisions.


After June 30, 2024, you will be eligible for severance, if any, as approved by the Committee under the same terms as similarly situated executive officers.


Other than as set forth above, the terms of your Offer Letter remain in effect.


Yours sincerely,




/s/ Sonia Syngal                                     
Sonia Syngal
President & Chief Executive Officer, Gap Inc.










/s/ Mark Breitbard                              
Mark Breitbard            






Date: November 23, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD FRANKLIN BACON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

REETIKA KUMAR, M.D.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16909

D.C. No. 3:15

- cv

- 04477

- LB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted September 26, 2017 * * *

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ronald Franklin Bacon appeals pro se from the

district court’ s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifferenc e to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropri ate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 6 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16909

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly gran ted summary judgment on Bacon’s deliberat e

indifference claims relating to wheelchair authorization and drug prescriptions

because Bacon failed t o raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive ris k to his serious medical needs.

See id. at 1057

- 60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she

knows of and disregards an exce ssive risk to inmate health; neither a difference of

opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Jackson

v. McIntosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff “must show that the

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the

circumstances”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.

See United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 ( 9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts

not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrell BAILEY.

No. 89-KH-1487.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Bailey, Tyrell; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 326-137.

Denied. Relator, according to information, is on the waiting list at Feliciana Forensic Facility and will be transferred as space becomes available.
Exhibit 10.2


 


2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan


 


In 2002, our
stockholders approved our long-term incentive compensation plan that is
administered by our Executive Compensation Committee. Our Executive
Compensation Committee has the authority to select grantees and to establish
and adjust performance goals, performance targets and target incentive
percentages. Only our full-time executives at the level of Vice President or
above are currently eligible grantees. A long-term compensation award may be
paid in the form of cash, stock options, shares of our common stock, restricted
stock, restricted stock units, common stock appreciation rights or any
combination thereof. Payment of long-term incentive compensation to a key
employee intended to satisfy the requirements for qualified performance-based
compensation will be contingent upon the attainment of one or more performance
goals established in writing for each performance period, which is defined as
the period of three consecutive fiscal years or such lesser period as
determined by our Executive Compensation Committee. Our Executive Compensation
Committee has established performance goals under the long-term incentive plan
based generally upon growth in funds from operations per share, return on
equity, growth in sales per square foot and total stockholder return. Our
Executive Compensation Committee, however, has the discretion to establish
performance goals based on other business criteria. If a key employee does not
meet certain minimum performance thresholds, such employee will not receive any
payouts under this plan. The maximum performance-based awards that may be paid
to any key employee based on attainment of one or more of the performance goals
is $4 million if the payment is pursuant to a long term incentive plan for a
three-year performance period. The 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan is superseded
by the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan for long-term incentive performance periods
commencing after January 1, 2004.
#### John Wilson JOHNSON v. STATE.

CR 91-498.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 22, 1993.

*AFTER REMAND*

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to the direction of the Alabama Supreme Court in *Ex parte Johnson,*629 So.2d 619 (Ala.1993), the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is *623remanded for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.
#### James CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy TABOR, Defendant and James Odiorne, Appellant.

No. 88-329.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 28, 1989.

Thomas & Dunahoe, Gerard Thomas and Robert Thomas, Natchitoches, for plaintiff/appellee.

Harrington & Harrington, Rodney Harrington, Natchitoches, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Michael P. Mentz, Metairie, for defendants/appellants.

Campbell, Campbell & Johnson, Mark 0. Foster, Minden, Henry H. Bernard, Baton Rouge, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Brian Homza, Shreveport, Fish, Montgomery *&*Robinson and Roy Fish, Minden, for defendants/appellees.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and DOUCET, JJ.

DOUCET, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated case of *Charlotte Krueger v. Billy Tabor, et al,*546 So.2d 1317 (La.App.3rd Cir.1989), rendered this day, the judgment appealed is REVERSED IN PART, AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED in accordance with the views expressed in the companion case.

REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 103

Honoring the members of the Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees

who served the Nation during the Vietnam era and the families of

those individuals who lost their lives or remain unaccounted for or

were injured during that era in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the

world in defense of United States national security interests.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 11, 2000

Mr. CLELAND submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the members of the Armed Forces and Federal

civilian employees who served the Nation during the Vietnam era and the families of those individuals who lost

their lives or remain unaccounted for or were injured

during that era in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the

world in defense of United States national security interests.

Whereas the United States Armed Forces conducted military

operations in Southeast Asia during the period (known as

the ‘‘Vietnam era’’) from February 28, 1961, to May 7,

1975;

Whereas during the Vietnam era more than 3,403,000 American military personnel served in the Republic of Vietnam
2

•SCON 103 IS

and elsewhere in Southeast Asia in support of United

States military operations in Vietnam, while millions

more provided for the Nation’s defense in other parts of

the world;

Whereas during the Vietnam era untold numbers of civilian

personnel of the United States Government also served in

support of United States operations in Southeast Asia

and elsewhere in the world;

Whereas May 7, 2000, marks the 25th anniversary of the

closing of the period known as the Vietnam era; and

Whereas that date would be an appropriate occasion to recognize and express appreciation for the individuals who

served the Nation in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the

world during the Vietnam era: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) honors the service and sacrifice of the mem4 bers of the Armed Forces and Federal civilian em5 ployees who during the Vietnam era served the Na6 tion in the Republic of Vietnam and elsewhere in

7 Southeast Asia or otherwise served in support of

8 United States operations in Vietnam and in support

9 of United States national security interests through10 out the world;

11 (2) recognizes and honors the sacrifice of the

12 families of those individuals referred to in paragraph

13 (1) who lost their lives or remain unaccounted for or

14 were injured during that era, in Southeast Asia or
3

•SCON 103 IS

1 elsewhere in the world, in defense of United States

2 national security interests; and

3 (3) encourages the American people, through

4 appropriate ceremonies and activities, to recognize

5 the service and sacrifice of those individuals.

Æ
50323.

#### SCHERMERHORN v. GREATER DeKALB PLUMBING & REPAIR COMPANY.

Stolz, Judge.

This appeal by the defendant property owner from the denial of his motion for summary judgment (certified for review) in the plaintiffs action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, raises the question of whether the affidavit of the plaintiffs officer, properly construed together with the other showing on the motion, particularly the affiant’s earlier deposition, was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the timeliness of the filing of the lien and the commencement of the action as provided in Code Ann. § 67-2002 (2, 3), as amended.

As a *deponent,*the officer deposed, in effect, that although he *thought*the work had been *substantially*completed beyond the 3-month and 12-month limits of § 67-2002, there *may*have been some details to be finished *518*within*the time limits. As an *affiant,*he swore affirmatively that he personally, as an employee of the plaintiff, performed services on the property *within*the statutory time limits. *Held:*

Argued February 25, 1975

Decided April 8, 1975.

*Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, J. Kenneth Moorman,*for appellant.

*Charles M. Lipman,*for appellee.

" 'Where the evidence on a motion for summary judgment is ambiguous or doubtful, the party opposing the motion must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and of all favorable inferences and such evidence construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion.’ *Word v. Henderson,*220 Ga. 846, 848 (142 SE2d 244); *Cooper v. Plott,*226 Ga. 647 (177 SE2d 82).

'The rule construing the evidence most favorably to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment applies to the testimony of that party *even though the testimony may be vague and contradictory. Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes,*227 Ga. 551 (181 SE2d 866).” (Emphasis supplied.) *Jordan v. Ailstock,*230 Ga. 67, 70 (195 SE2d 425).

The deposition and the affidavit are probably reconcilable in that the former recognizes the *possibility*of work within the statutory time limits, and the latter affirms the fact of such work. Even if the plaintiff’s evidence is ambiguous, doubtful, vague, or even contradictory, however, giving it, as the party opposing the motion, the benefit of all reasonable doubts and of all favorable inferences and construing such evidence most favorably to it, as we must do, it was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact for resolution by a jury, who will be the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, as well as of the other evidence.

The trial judge did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Been, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 273A16

Filed 29 September 2017

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

JAMISON CHRISTOPHER GOINS

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 789 S.E.2d 466 (2016), reversing an order 

denying defendant’s motion to suppress entered on 15 April 2015 by Judge Stuart 

Albright, and vacating defendant’s guilty plea and judgments entered on 11 May 2015

by Judge Richard S. Gottlieb, all in Superior Court, Guilford County, and remanding 

the case for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 June 2017.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Shawn R. Evans and Kristin J. Uicker, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.

Drew Nelson for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of 

Appeals is reversed. 

REVERSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,422,740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,217,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,289,058
<INVENTORY>                                  8,024,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,877,811
<PP&E>                                      40,533,650
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,754,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,870,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       64,012,682
<BONDS>                                        343,122
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           823
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,360,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,870,640
<SALES>                                    135,061,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           135,061,098
<CGS>                                      111,744,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              111,744,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,851,447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,145,527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,696,509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,298
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,577,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,577,290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### State Justice Institute

# AGENCY:

State Justice Institute.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 1 p.m. The meeting will be held at the National Center for State Courts Headquarters in Williamsburg, Virginia. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2012, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.

# ADDRESSES:

National Center for State Courts Headquarters, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23185, 800-616-6164.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 22314, 571-313-8843,                         *contact@sji.gov.*

Jonathan D. Mattiello,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2012-7179 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Raymond ROCHON v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Sergeant Mike Roberts, Lieutenant R. Mitchel, Lieutenant Kenneth Roy, Lieutenant Colonel Richard A. Wall, et al.

No. 87-CP-2708.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1988.

In re Rochon, Raymond; applying for remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 1270; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 213.

Denied.
Document

Exhibit 10.1




															
	

















lululemon
____






Store Support Centre
1818 Cornwall Ave.
Vancouver BC
Canada
V6J 1C7
____


P. 1 604 732 6124
F. 1 604 874 6124
lululemon.com
	October 26, 2020


STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Celeste Burgoyne




Re:         Second Amending Agreement


Dear Celeste:


As you know, you and lululemon are parties to an executive employment agreement dated November 30, 2016, as amended by the First Amending Agreement dated April 25, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”). We now write to confirm the amendments to the Employment Agreement as discussed. Therefore, for good and valuable consideration, including but not limited to the payment of fifty dollars ($50.00) from the Company to you, your acceptance of the terms set out in this letter (the “Second Amending Agreement”) by signing where indicated below will implement the following amendments to the Employment Agreement:


1.Section 1.01 of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following new definition: ““Second Amendment Date” means October 27, 2020.”


2.Section 2.01(1) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the section: “The Executive's position will be President, Americas and Global Guest Innovation starting on the Second Amendment Date.”


3.Section 2.01(3) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the section: “The Executive shall perform duties and responsibilities as are normally provided by a President, Americas and Global Guest Innovation of a corporation in a business and of a size similar to the Company and such other duties and responsibilities as may reasonably  be assigned from time to time, subject always to  the control and direction of the Chief Executive Officer, starting on the Second Amendment Date.”




Except as expressly amended by this Second Amending Agreement, we confirm that all other terms and conditions of your employment will remain as set out in the Employment Agreement, including without limitation the termination provisions contained therein.  


Yours truly,


lululemon athletica inc.

		By:	/s/    CALVIN MCDONALD		
			Calvin McDonald, Chief Executive Officer		
					
		AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
		By:	/s/    CELESTE BURGOYNE		October 28, 2020
			Celeste Burgoyne		Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                        
<ARTICLE>                                         5
                                                                       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS                           
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                      OCT-01-1996       
<PERIOD-END>                                                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                                   44,559
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         44,559
<PP&E>                                                                  847,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          151,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          745,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                30,660,876
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   4
<COMMON>                                                                    811
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (29,916,623)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            745,068
<SALES>                                                              41,034,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     41,034,609
<CGS>                                                                47,139,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        47,139,547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     27,436,679
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   (7,266,885)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (109,502,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (109,502,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       21,717,654
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (87,784,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              1.08
        

</TABLE>