alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1



 




Exhibit 10.1



Summary of Annual Cash Bonus Plan


     
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (the
“Company”) has an annual cash bonus plan for its
current Chief Executive Officer. The Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of the Company annually determines the
performance criteria upon which awards under the plan will be
based. For the 2005 – 2007 years, the Compensation
Committee has determined that Mr. Edward Crawford, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, will be
entitled to an award equal to 4% of the Company’s
consolidated adjusted net income.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.2  


 
 

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP
  SUMMARY OF
  DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS    
    



        Directors who are employees of Regal Entertainment Group or its subsidiaries receive no additional cash or equity compensation for service on the Regal
Entertainment Group Board of Directors. All Directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to attendance at Board of Director and Board of Director
committee meetings. Messrs. Thomas D. Bell, Jr., Lewis W. Coleman, Michael J. Dolan and Alfred C. Eckert III receive an annual cash retainer for Board
of Director service of $40,000. 


        Directors
do not receive additional cash or equity compensation for service on committees of Regal Entertainment Group's Board of Directors. 











QuickLinks


REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS
**EXHIBIT 10.2**

 

**PRENTISS PROPERTIES ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P.**

 

**Sixth Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited**

**Partnership of Prentiss Properties Acquisition Partners, L.P.**

 

**RECITALS**

 

Belport Realty Corporation desires to assign and Belshire Realty Corporation (“**Assignee**”) desires to acquire 160,000 8.30% SeriesB Preferred Units of the Partnership. 

 

Pursuant to Article XIof the Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, dated as of October 1, 2001, as amended by amendments dated December 18, 2001, January 3, 2002, March 19, 2002, July 30, 2002 and July 23, 2003 (as so amended, the“**Agreement**”), of the Partnership, Prentiss Properties I, Inc. as the sole general partner of the Partnership (the “**General Partner**”), desires to amend the Agreement to admit Assignee as a SubstituteLimited Partner with respect to the Assigned Units; terms being used herein as defined in the Agreement. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the General Partner hereby adopts the following amendment to the Agreement. 

 

1. Exhibit A to the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as set forth on Exhibit A attachedhereto. 

 

2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section4.02 (d) (viii) or elsewhere in the Agreement, none of the 8.30% Series B Preferred Units held by Belshire Realty Corporation may be exchanged for Series B Preferred Shares prior to January 1, 2014. 

 

3. Assignee accepts and agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions of theAgreement. 

 

[Signature Page Follows] 

 

1 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner, Assignor and the Assignee have executed this Sixth Amendment asof October 8, 2003. 

 

GENERAL PARTNER

PRENTISS PROPERTIES I, INC.

By:
 
/s/ Michael A. Ernst
  
Name: Michael A. Ernst
  
Title:    EVP - CFO

ASSIGNEE AND SUBSTITUTE LIMITED

PARTNER:

BELSHIRE REALTY CORPORATION

By:
 
/s/ William R. Cross
  
Name: William R. Cross
  
Title:    Vice President

ASSIGNOR:

BELPORT REALTY CORPORATION

By:
 
/s/ William R. Cross
  
Name: William R. Cross
  
Title:    Vice President

 

2
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF GEOLOGICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC





CONSENT OF GEOLOGICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of any reports concerning reserves and other analyses performed by us in our capacity as an independent consultant to USCorp (the “Company”), which are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A and for the year ended September 30, 2010 and any registration statements or prospectuses to be filed in connection with the sale or resale from time to time of securities of the Company, or amendments or supplements thereto; and in any amendment to any registration statements or prospectuses.





We also consent to the reference to us under the headings “Consultants” and “Experts” in any of the aforementioned documents.





GEOLOGICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC/S/ Robert CameronName: Robert CameronTitle: President
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1923 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1923

   To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior to the 
                   completion of a background check.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2017

 Mr. Blumenthal (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, 
Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Menendez, 
Mr. Reed, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Markey, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
   Casey, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Harris, Mr. 
 Sanders, Ms. Hassan, and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior to the 
                   completion of a background check.

    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 ``Background Check Completion Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS.

    Section 922(t)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(i)'';
            (2) by striking ``; or'' and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by striking clause (ii).
                                 <all>
```
May24, 2012

Aloha Ley Associate Director Small CommunityAir Service Development Program United States Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue SE Washington, DC 20590



### RE: SUPPORT OF MCCLELLAN-PALOMARAIRPORT GRANTAPPLICATION UNDERTHE SMALL COMMUNITYAIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DearAssociate Director Ley:
I am writing to express my full support as Mayor ofthe City ofSan Marcos for the County ofSan Diego's FY 2012 Small Community Air Service Development grant submission. I understand that the County is requesting federal funding to support the addition of California Pacific Airlines (CP Air) at McClellan-PalomarAirport in Carlsbad, California. Being a professional airline pilot myself, I have firsthand experience with many years of long and costly freeway trips to major airports in downtown San Diego (SAN), Orange County (SNA) and Los Angeles (LAX). This loss ofvaluable time, gasoline consumption and fighting majortraffic are all strong reasons that we- should .implement a viable small airport alternative with McClellanPalomarAirport and CP Air. The Airport is extremely convenientfor both residents and commerce in my city aswell as the nearly 700,000 peop'e living in North Countytoday. McClellan-PalomarAirport is a major untapped assetthat, with your support, can inject economic vitality and smarter intermodal travel in our region. Unfortunately, McClellan-Palomar Airport is suffering significant long-term loss in airline seats and in the number of passengers using the facility. A study revealed that 98% of local passengers drive to other airports for air travel. I believe that CP Air will reverse this trend and help revitalize the regional air system along the westcoast. The federal investment in the Airport will also improve North San Diego County'sjob outlook. It is estimated that CP Air will add over 100 new localjobs in its first year and growto more than 500 employees byyearfive. This long-termjob creation comes at a time ofgreat need forour region. 

### I encourage the FAA's approval and implementation of the funding contained in the County's grant application. As 

### a Mayor and a pilot, 

### I know this airport has a unique chance to reinvigorate our region's economy and also our way of accessing air travel. Furthermore, 

### I am confident that the benefits will pay dividends manytimes overthis initial grant investment.


### ( ·. Sincerely, 

# 0,

# '--~J~/ Hon. Jim Desmond· Mayor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                            6,962
<SECURITIES>                     56,083
<RECEIVABLES>                    18,381
<ALLOWANCES>                        160
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 83,469
<PP&E>                          140,382
<DEPRECIATION>                   25,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  200,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            32,668
<BONDS>                          20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          3,984
<OTHER-SE>                      142,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    200,794
<SALES>                          51,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 79,152
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    47,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  33,759
<INCOME-TAX>                     13,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              19,977
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     19,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.26
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

AKYLIE DAVIS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-4209

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 23, 2020.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.084(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Martinez v. State, 211 

So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2017); State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004); Gudinas v. 

State, 879 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2004); State v. Whitehead, 472 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1985); 

Calloway v. State, 914 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Tillman v. State, 900 So. 2d 633 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Davis v. State, 884 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Simms v. 

State, 949 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Cooper v. State, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2005).

KELLY, ATKINSON, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Duane Coble, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant purports to ap*983peal from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of first degree attempted robbery. Because defendant failed to file a notice of appeal from that judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it *(see,*CPL 460.10 [1]; *People v Weston,*50 AD2d 940; *People v Creazzo,*39 AD2d 748). Contrary to defendant’s contention, CPL 460.10 (6) does not excuse the total failure to file and serve a notice of appeal *(see, People v Duggan,*69 NY2d 931, 932-933). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—attempted robbery, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1853 

To provide disaster relief to small businesses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 

Mr. NELSON (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To provide disaster relief to small businesses, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Dis5 aster Relief Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING DISASTER LOAN 

7 PROCESSING. 

8 It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator 

9 of the Small Business Administration should use district 

10 offices of the Administration whenever possible to expedite 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1853 IS

1 the processing of disaster loans under section 7(b) of the 

2 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)). 

3 SEC. 3. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER PORT4 ABILITY GRANTS. 

5 Section 21(a)(4)(C)(viii) of the Small Business Act 

6 (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(4)(C)(viii)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘as a re8 sult of a business or government facility down sizing 

9 or closing, which has resulted in the loss of jobs or 

10 small business instability’’ and inserting ‘‘due to 

11 events that have resulted or will result in a business 

12 or government facility downsizing or closing’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘At the 

14 discretion of the Administrator, the Administrator 

15 may make an award greater than $100,000 to a re16 cipient to accommodate extraordinary occurrences 

17 having a catastrophic impact on the small business 

18 concerns in a community.’’. 

19 SEC. 4. DISASTER ASSISTANCE TO CRITICAL ENTERPRISES. 

20 Section 237 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (15 

21 U.S.C. 636d) is amended— 

22 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub23 section (c); and 

24 (2) in subsection (a)— 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1853 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘Farmers Home Adminis2 tration’’ and inserting ‘‘Farm Service Agency’’; 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘major disaster or’’ and in4 serting ‘‘major disaster or is vital to recovery 

5 efforts in the disaster area (including providing 

6 debris removal services, manufactured housing, 

7 gasoline, telecommunications, or building mate8 rials),’’; and 

9 (C) by striking ‘‘Loans authorized’’ and in10 serting the following: 

11 ‘‘(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Notwithstanding 

12 any other provision of law, loans authorized by this sec13 tion— 

14 ‘‘(1) shall be made without regard to limitations 

15 on the size of loans which may otherwise be imposed 

16 by any other provision of law or regulations promul17 gated pursuant thereto; and 

18 ‘‘(2) may waive any required evaluation of cred19 itworthiness in exchange for a fee, as set by the 

20 Small Business Administration or the Farm Service 

21 Agency, as applicable.’’. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
#### M. B. Mahtani, Appellant, v C. Ramon, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered May 7, 1990, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint upon the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and inappropriate forum, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a New York resident, brought this action for declaratory and monetary relief arising out of transactions which concededly took place in New Jersey. On a motion to dismiss the complaint, defendant H. K. Shah (Shah), president of the corporate defendants named in the complaint, submitted an affidavit alleging, essentially, that neither he nor any of the corporate defendants have any contacts or connection with this State and do not transact business here.

This action arises out of an allegedly usurious loan to plaintiff, a New York resident, as evidenced by a promissory note to the corporate defendant, C. Ramon, Inc., in the amount of $20,000.

The defendants deny any residence in New York, or that they have ever transacted business here.

It was plaintiff’s burden to prove that defendants transacted business within the State pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) *(see, Carte v Parkoff,*152 AD2d 615). Vague references by plaintiff to discussions had in New York which could have taken place either before or long after the transaction complained of fail to demonstrate purposeful activity by the defendants in this State that was undertaken in connection with the transactions at issue. At best, plaintiff’s allegations barely suffice to demonstrate that there was an attempt to settle differences with respect to a preexisting contract which, in and of itself, does not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. *(See, e.g., Bankers Commercial Corp. v Alto, Inc.,*30 AD2d 517.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch, and Wallach, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2015

p1019

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2015

148151

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148151

COA: 314839

Bay CC: 12-010894-FH

JEFFREY ALBERT SCHWEBACH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v 

Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on 

July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Bay 

Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different 

sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, the trial 

court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial court 

determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the unconstitutional 

constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, however, the trial 

court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### MOORE v. STATE.

No. 16491.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1934.

Bozeman & Cathey, of Quitman, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, two and one-half years in the penitentiary.

We see no reason for discussing the facts in this case further than may be necessary to set forth our reasons for our decision. The fourth paragraph of the charge of the court below is as follows:

> “Serious bodily injury is such an injury as causes apprehension of death.”

Appellant excepted to the giving of such charge. This charge clearly gave an incorrect definition of “serious bodily injury” as has been often held by this court. See Bruce v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 27, 51 S. W. 954; McKee v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 246 S. W. 1035; Schutz v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 287, 257 S. W. 880; Maynard v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 204, 265 S. W. 167; Holcomb v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 456, 265 S. W. 1039; Vega v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 276 S. W. 1104. “Serious bodily injury,” in our legal nomenclature, means, the injury must be grave, not trivial, such an injury as gives rise to apprehension of danger to life, health, or limb. Section 1583 of Mr. Branch’s Annotated P. C. cites numerous decisions upholding this definition. Throughout his charge the court based appellant’s right to act in self-defense upon an attack made by Fammell which threatened the life or to do serious bodily injury to this appellant. Such a charge might not be cause for reversal if the facts showed without dispute that the claim of self-defense was against such an attack as would reasonably cause death or apprehension thereof, but we have here no suoh case. Under the testimony of the state, Fammell was making no attack upon appellant when the latter shot him. Under appellant’s testimony Fammell drew a knife and advanced upon him, and continued to advance after being warned not to come any further, and while so advancing appellant says he shot. The size of the knife or its kind or character was not inquired into; nor did appellant say he shot to keep Fammell from killing him, or because he thought Fammell was going to maim or kill him. He merely said Fammell was coming on him with a knife. It must be reasonably apparent that under such circumstances a charge restricting appellant’s right to defend himself to a situation in which he was attacked, or believed himself to be attacked in such manner as to threaten his life or to do him serious bodily injury, was more onerous' than required by law and placed a greater burden .upon appellant than he was required to bear.

For the error in giving the charge mentioned, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remandéd.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALAN KING LITTLE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:11-cr-00169-HMH-1; 6:13-cv-02803-HMH)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan King Little, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alan King Little seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED