alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

ORIGEN FINANCIAL, INC.

2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN




          This First Amendment to Origen Financial, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Amendment”) is
effective as of July 18, 2005. All capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Amendment have
the same meanings as in the Origen Financial, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).




Recitals




          The Plan was approved by board of directors of Origen Financial, Inc. (the
“Company”) as of September 14, 2003 and by the stockholders of the Company as of October 8,
2003.




          Pursuant to Section 13.01 of the Plan, the board of directors of the Company has adopted
this Amendment to the Plan as of July 18, 2005.




Amendments



The Plan is hereby amended as follows:



1. Section 4.02 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:



4.02 Shares Subject to Terminated Awards. In the event that any Award at any time granted
under the Plan shall be surrendered to the Company (including, without limitation, pursuant to the
minimum tax withholding procedures described in Section 12.04(a)), be terminated or expire before
it shall have been fully exercised, or an award of Stock Appreciation Rights is exercised for cash,
then all shares formerly subject to such Award as to which such Award shall not have been exercised
shall be available for any Award subsequently granted in accordance with the Plan. Shares of
Common Stock subject to Options, or portions thereof, which have been surrendered in connection
with the exercise of tandem Stock Appreciation Rights shall not be available for subsequent Awards
under the Plan, and shares of Common Stock issued in payment of such Stock Appreciation Rights
shall be charged against the number of shares of Common Stock available for the grant of Awards.
Shares of Restricted Stock which are forfeited pursuant to forfeiture provisions in the Award
Agreement shall be available for subsequently granted Awards only if the forfeiting Participant
received no benefits of ownership (such as dividends actually paid to the Participant) other than
voting rights of the forfeited shares. Any shares of Common Stock issued by the Company pursuant
to its assumption or substitution of outstanding grants from acquired companies shall not reduce
the number of shares available for Awards under this Plan unless issued under this Plan.



2. After the date of this Amendment, all references in the Plan to the “Plan” shall mean the
Plan, as amended by this Amendment. The Plan is hereby amended accordingly.




 









 







3. The Plan and this Amendment, together, set forth the entire agreement and understanding of
the parties to them, and supersede all prior agreements, arrangements and communications, whether
oral or written, with respect to their subject matter. Except as modified by this Amendment, the
Plan remains unchanged and, as modified, continues in full force and effect. In the event of any
conflict between the terms of the Plan and the terms of this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment
shall control.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, October 17, 2001, it stand ad4 journed until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001,

5 for morning hour debate, or until Members are notified
2

•HCON 251 EH

1 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res2 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate

3 recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Wednes4 day, October 17, 2001, or Thursday, October 18, 2001,

5 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

6 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed

7 or adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 2001,

8 or at such other time on that day as may be specified by

9 its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess

10 or adjourn, or until Members are notified to reassemble

11 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which12 ever occurs first.

13 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

14 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

15 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead16 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

17 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place

18 and time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion,

19 the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 251

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the

House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
#### STATE ex rel. James KELLY v. CLERK OF COURT, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT SEC. “E”.

No. 89-KH-1406.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Kelly, James; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 180-625.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


AMERICAN BANK NOTE
HOLOGRAPHICS, INC.


2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Pursuant to Section 12
of the American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, as
amended (the “Plan”), the second sentence of Section 7(d) of the Plan
is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“Except as
otherwise determined by the Board, if a director’s service on the Board
terminates for any reason other than death or Disability, then: (1) any
portion of an Option granted pursuant to this Section 7 that is not
exercisable on the date of termination shall immediately terminate, and (2) any
portion of an Option granted pursuant to this Section 7 that is
exercisable on the date of termination shall remain exercisable during the
ninety (90) day period following the date of termination or, if sooner, until
the expiration of the stated term thereof and, to the extent not exercised
during such period, shall thereupon terminate.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned Secretary of the Company certifies that the foregoing amendment to
the Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on May 24,
2005.


Dated: May 24, 2005


 


	
   

  	
  AMERICAN BANK NOTE
  HOLOGRAPHICS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: /s/ Alan Goldstein

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   Secretary

  



 


1
Exhibit 10.10



Summary of SAFLINK Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation



---



Our board of directors, after consultation with an independent compensation consulting firm and based on competitive data and the analysis of the
consultation firm, determined the cash and equity compensation structure as set forth below to be paid to members of the board of directors and committees of the board of directors who are not employees, effective as of March 29, 2005:



| |  |  | each non-employee director receives an annual retainer of $25,000; each member of the audit committee, the compensation committee, and the nominating and corporate governance
committee receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000; and the chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee, and the nominating and corporate governance committee each receives an additional annual retainer of $20,000;
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | each non-employee director receives an additional fee of $500 per board and committee meeting attended (whether in person or telephonically), except that no meeting fee will be paid
for the first four meetings (board meetings or committee meetings) attended by such director; and each such director shall be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at board and committee meetings;
and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | each new non-employee director receives an initial stock option grant for 40,000 shares upon commencement of service on the board; and each continuing non-employee director receives
an annual stock option grant for 40,000 shares on the date of the annual stockholder meeting; with all such option grants becoming exercisable in twelve equal monthly installments following the date of grant if such person is still serving as a
director at such time.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 168 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 168

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 11, 2001

        Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress in support of victims of torture.

Whereas the people of the United States abhor the use of torture by any 
        government or person;
Whereas the existence of torture creates a climate of fear and international 
        insecurity that affects all people;
Whereas torture results in mental and physical damage to an individual that 
        destroys the individual's personality and terrorizes society and the 
        effects of torture can last a life-

time for the individual and can also affect future generations;

Whereas repressive governments often use torture as a weapon against democracy 
        by eliminating the leadership of their opposition and frightening the 
        general public;
Whereas more than 500,000 survivors of torture live in the United States;
Whereas torture has devastating effects on the victim which often require 
        extensive medical and psychological treatment;
Whereas both the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320) and the 
        Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-87) 
        authorize funding for rehabilitation services for victims of torture so 
        that these individuals may become productive and contributing members of 
        their communities;
Whereas the United States played a leading role in the adoption of the Universal 
        Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the United Nations 
        Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Inhuman and Degrading 
        Treatment or Punishment; and
Whereas June 26th of each year is the United Nations International Day in 
        Support of Victims of Torture: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, on the occasion of the United Nations International Day in 
Support of Victims of Torture, Congress pays tribute to all victims of 
torture in the United States and around the world who are struggling to 
overcome the physical scars and psychological effects of torture.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### CENTURION PLACE CIVIC ASSOCIATION v. Robert CULBERTSON.

No. 88-C-0197.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Culbertson, Robert; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86-1488; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 291092.

Denied.
#### Howard R. SCHARLIN, Trustee, and R.S. Investments Corp., Appellants, v. BROWARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD, William Markham, Broward County Property Appraiser, Joseph Rosenhager, Broward County Tax Collector, and Randy Miller, Executive Director, Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 85-2045.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 7, 1987.

*346Robert D. Korner, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Claudette Pelletier of Law Offices of Gaylord A. Wood, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Markham and Miller.

STONE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal for failure to prosecute, entered pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).

The one-year period without record activity required for dismissal would have expired on June 1, 1985. However, on May 15, 1985, the trial court, *sua sponte,*issued an order to show cause, scheduling a hearing in June. On May 20, 1985, the plaintiff delivered to the court a notice certifying that the case was at issue and ready for trial on a non-jury calendar. The court clerk did not “clock in” and file this notice because a proposed court order, which was included as part of the notice, had not been signed by the judge. The notice did contain a certification of May 20th service. A separate document, entitled “Showing of Good Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed” was filed on May 22nd. This document also contained a certificate of May 20th service and referred to the May 20,1985 notice. The court order was never signed and the notice was never officially filed.

We reject the appellees’ contention that the date of service determines the time of the last record activity. It is the date of filing that commences and concludes the running of the one-year period. *See Collado v. C & C Cattle Co.,*415 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); *Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Russell,*398 So.2d 949 (Fla. 4th DCA), *rev. denied,*411 So.2d 381 (Fla.1981).

The delivery of the notice to the court, here, was an adequate filing. As such, there was record activity within one year.

We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 213 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 213

  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of 
 employees in the Senate in Bonnie Mendelson v. Delaware River and Bay 
                               Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 1, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony, document production, and representation of 
 employees in the Senate in Bonnie Mendelson v. Delaware River and Bay 
                               Authority.

 Whereas, in the case of Bonnie Mendelson v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, 
        Civil Action No. 98-90-GSL, pending in the U.S. District Court for the 
        District of Delaware, testimony has been requested from David P. Hauck 
        and Julie B. Cardillo, employees of the Congressional Special Services 
        Office, and Bonnie Powell, a former employee of the Congressional 
        Special Services Office;
 Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
 Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of 
        the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in 
        the possession of the Senate may, by the administrative or judicial 
        process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of 
        the Senate; and
 Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession 
        of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That David P. Hauck, Julie B. Cardillo, Bonnie Powell, 
and any other current or former employee of the Senate from whom 
testimony or document production may be required, are authorized to 
testify and produce documents in the case of Bonnie Mendelson v. 
Delaware River and Bay Authority, except concerning matters for which a 
privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent David 
P. Hauck, Julie B. Cardillo, Bonnie Powell, and any other current or 
former employee of the Senate in connection with the testimony and 
document production authorized in section 1.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.3


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  559/449-9400

  
	
   

  	
  Fax 

  	
  559/449-9493

  
	
   

  	
  URL
  www.nawes.com

  



 





 


	
  July 11, 2005

  	
   

  	
  7429 N. First Street

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Suite 104

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Fresno, CA 93720

  
	
  Coast National Bank

  	
   

  
	
  Ms. Davina Palazzo

  	
   

  
	
  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  
	
  500 Marsh Street

  	
   

  
	
  San Luis Obispo, CA

  	
   

  



 


Re: Office Space / Fresno, CA


 


Dear Ms. Palazzo:


 


In regard to Coast National Bank (CNB) procuring temporary office space
in Fresno, California, NAI Commercial Pacific (NAI), has agreed with your
employee, Mr. Patrick Durkin to enter into a month-to-month office use
agreement.


 


The terms of the agreement are as follows:


 


1.     Space:
One individual private office within the rental space of NAI Commercial Pacific’s
Fresno office.


 


2.     Location:
7429 N. First St., Suite 104, Fresno, CA 93720


 


3.     Term:  Month-to-month but in no event to be less
than six (6) months in duration with the opportunity to extend term with the
consent of both parties.


 


4.     Rent:
The rental rate shall be $1,300.00 per month in advance with zero deposit.


 


5.     Other
matters:  Coast National Bank shall have
the right to use all facilities within the office space including conference
room, copier, fax capabilities and coffee service within normal and customary
uses. NAI Commercial Pacific will provide telephone with separate direct line.  Telephone local calls will be at no cost to
CNB but all long distance will be charged back. 
NAI will provide five (5) days per week janitorial services and pay all
utility charges associated with rental space.


 


We look forward to having Mr. Durkin in the office and look forward to
a good relationship.  Please let us know
the commencement date for our files.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  
	
  NAI Commercial Pacific

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Gary C. Mathias

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Gary C. Mathias, President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  AGREED AND APPROVED

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  BY:

  	
  /s/ Davina Palazzo

  	
   

  	
  DATE:

  	
  7/13/05

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Davina Palazzo

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  BY:

  	
  /s/ Patrick Durkin, V. P.

  	
   

  	
  DATE:

  	
  7/13/05

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Patrick Durkin, V. P.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Business Development Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  
							



 


	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  	
  The United State

  	
   

  	
  Mexico

  	
   

  	
  Canada

  	
   

  	
  South America

  	
   

  	
  Europe

  
	
  COMMERCIAL
  REAL ESTATE SERVICES WORLDWIDE.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-329-CV

BOB AND JANE DURHAM APPELLANTS

V.

STEVE AND CATHY STROUD APPELLEES

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COOKE COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Appellants’ Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is the

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellants, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: January 8, 2009
#### David Wesley SCHUMACHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2250.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 20, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Anne Owens, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, David Wesley Schumacher, challenges that portion of his judgment and sentence in which the trial court imposed a fine and court costs upon him. We reverse.

At sentencing, the trial court orally imposed a fine and costs totaling $770.50 upon the appellant without specifying the manner in which the amount was to be apportioned and without providing any statutory authority for the imposition of either the fine or costs. We, therefore, strike the fine and costs without prejudice to the trial court’s reimposing a fine and costs after the notice and hearing requirements of *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), have been fully complied with. If the court again imposes a fine and costs, however, it should impose the fine and costs separately and provide statutory au*1232thority under which each amount is imposed. *See Brown v. State,*506 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA), *petition for review denied,*515 So.2d 229 (Fla.1987).

Reversed.

DANAHY, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.