alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w8







Exhibit 10.8




Orion Energy Systems, Inc.

Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan




	 	 	 

	1. Annual cash retainer:

	 	$40,000 (cash or stock)1 ($10,000 paid quarterly)
	 
	2. Board meeting fee:

	 	None
	 
	3. Committee meeting fee

	 	None
	 
	4. Annual option grant:

	 	$45,000 grant date fair market value2
	 
	5. Annual Chairman retainer:

	 	$20,000 (cash or stock)1
	 
	6. Annual Lead Independent Director retainer:

	 	$15,000 (cash or stock) 1
	 
	7. Annual Audit Committee Chairman retainer:

	 	$15,000 (cash or stock) 1
	 
	8. Annual Compensation and Governance
Committee Chair retainer:

	 	$10,000 (cash or stock) 1
	 
	9. Reimburse out-of-pocket expenses:

	 	Yes
	 
	10. New independent director award:

	 	TBD cash or equity-based award (but potentially significant
to attract highly-qualified additional independent
directors)








 




			
	1	 	Form of compensation to be chosen by each
individual prior to each fiscal year. Number of shares to be issued on third
business day after release of annual (or quarterly, in case of quarterly
retainer payments) earnings announcement based on closing price on such date.
	 
	2	 	Annual option grant on third business day
after annual earnings announcement with exercise price equal to closing sale
price on such date – vest 1/3 each year.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 21 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) FROM: Angela Cullen , Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 10 , 2011 b etween EMA and EPA and included the following individuals: EMA: Tim Blubaugh EPA: Cle Jackson and Angela Cullen The discussion focused on reference test method for aerodyn amic determination and standardized trailers.
REF ID:A521640 

IN TJ!J'; UNITF.D STA'.t:'ES PA'11ENT OFPICE 

IM RF.: Applio~tion of 

wnJI:IAJ1 F. FRIBDM~M 

Serial Number 

107 ,21,./i. 

Filed 

23 October 193(1 

For 

CRYT'TO\;m i'lt'3 

* 

* 

TOi Tho Honorable Co~missioner 0£ Pat0nts 

Wa.shington 25, n .. C. 

Sir: 

Division 53 

The unders:lgncd ho.:ving, on or about the 2.3rd day of October 

193~ made nppl:i.ca.tion for lett.er!l patent fo:r an i!11provement :1n 

Cryptographs ( serinl number 107 ,241~), and having this cla1 revoked 

a power. or s.tt.ornoy givAn on or !lborrt the ::Z~~ dD.y of Hovember 

1940 to Willfam D. Hall, of the O:Cfico of thll Chief Signal Oi'f'ioer, 

hereby appoints Henry n. Stauffer, of Arlington County, Virginia, 

his attorney, with :f.'ull powor or substitution !lnd revocation, to 

prosecute said applicati.on, to make alterations and amendments 

therein, to receive the pa.tent, and to tran.~nct all business in 

the Patent Office, connected therewith. 

Signed in the County of Arlington and State of' Virginia. this 

d_1li1 

_ day of __:...y'{J~·-' ~~J A• D. 1947 • 

William Pe Friedman, Applicant 

t"pproved for Release by NSA on 11-21-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B. 
REF ID:A521640 

IN THF. tmrrnn STATES PATF.NT OFFICE 

IN RE: Application of * WIIJ,IAM F'. FRIEDMAM 

* Serial Number 

J.07 ,244 * 

Filod * 23 October J.9J6 

* For 

CRYPTOGRAPHS * 

* * * * * ·:~· * * ~:-

TO: The Honorable Gommisaioner. of Pntonts 

Washington 25, D. c. 

Sirt 

Division 53 

The undersigned having, on or about tho 23rd day of November, 

1940, appointed William D. Hall, of tho Office of the Chief' Signal 

.Officer, his attorney to prosecute an application for letters patent 

which application Vlf:\S filed on or about the 23rd day or October 1936, 

for an inlprovemen·t in Cryptographs (serial number 107 1 244), hereby 

revokes the power or 9.t.torney then given. 

Signed in tho County of Arli..'lgton and State of Virginia, this sr- . . ;(f day of ~ , A. D. 19/{/. 

William F. Friedman, Applicant
ex10_11b.htm









Exhibit 10.11B


 


 


Mr. Harald Braun







Dear Harald,







On behalf of BigBand Networks, Inc. (“BigBand” or “the Company”), I am pleased that you’ve agreed to continue serving the Company as Executive Vice President beyond the previously-anticipated June 30, 2011 termination date until October 15, 2011.  In consideration of this additional service, at our next regularly-scheduled Board meeting, we anticipate awarding you with 28,800 restricted stock units, which will vest over a one-year period, with vesting in equal quarterly installments following the date of grant.  The foregoing grant will be subject to the terms and conditions of the related BigBand Stock Option Plan and related standard form of stock option agreement, which you will be required to sign as a condition of receiving the award.  All terms of such employment shall remain as outlined in that certain letter agreement by and between you and BigBand dated October 19, 2010.







Harald, I am pleased that you’ve agreed to extend your service as an interim Executive Vice President.








	  	
Sincerely yours,


	  	  
	  	 
	  	 
	  	 










I accept this offer of at-will employment with BigBand Networks, Inc. and I agree that this letter and the Nondisclosure and Developments Agreement sets forth the complete and sole understanding regarding the terms of my employment and supersedes any and all other agreements, negotiations, discussions, proposals, or understandings, whether oral or written, previously entered into, discussed or considered by the parties.








	 	  	 
	 	  	
Date
Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




To the Board of Directors
CPI Aerostructures, Inc.


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-11669 and 333-42403) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos.
333-08391 and 333-08216) on Form S-3 of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. of our report
dated March 29, 2002 related to the consolidated balance sheet of CPI
Aerostructures, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2001, which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-KSB of CPI
Aerostructures, Inc.



/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

April 16, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-18-00461-CR

Style: Gilberto Antonio Guillen-Hernandez v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: May 2, 2019

Type of motion: Motion for Pro Se Access to the Records and Briefs

Party filing motion: Pro Se Appellant Gilberto Antonio Guillen-Hernandez

Document to be filed: N/A

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

On December 18, 2018, appellant’s appointed counsel timely filed appellant’s brief on 

the merits and has not sought to withdraw from representing appellant, and the State’s.

appellee’s brief was filed on April 5, 2019. See TEX. R. APP.P. 6.5. Accordingly,

appellant’s motion for pro se access to the records and briefs is dismissed as moot

because he is currently represented by counsel and is not entitled to hybrid

representation. See Ex parte Taylor, 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) 

(stating “[a]ppellants are not allowed to have hybrid representation” and appellant

did not have right to file documents with appellate court while represented by

counsel). Appellant’s appointed counsel, James Rivera, is directed to contact his client 

regarding this motion.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Laura C. Higley______

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __May 9, 2019___
#### The State ex rel. Bruggeman, Appellant, *v.*Leonard, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Leonard*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 298.]

(No. 99-456

Submitted July 28, 1999

Decided September 1, 1999.)

*299
      *Christopher Bruggeman, pro se.*

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Laurence R. Snyder,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Bruggeman asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his petition and assessing costs against him. For the following reasons, Bruggeman’s contentions lack merit.

Habeas corpus will not issue to raise claims of insufficiency of evidence or erroneous jury instructions. See, *e.g., Cornell v. Schotten*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467, 633 N.E.2d 1111, 1112; *State ex rel. Beaver v. Konteh*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 519, 521, 700 N.E.2d 1256, 1258.

Further, the court of appeals did not err in assessing costs against Bruggeman. Contrary to his contentions, he was not the prevailing party in his habeas corpus case, and the court of appeals could have properly determined that, based on the account statement submitted by the prison cashier, he had sufficient funds to make periodic partial payments of the assessed costs.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1439

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Leroy Laron Eason, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 23, 2010

 Filed: August 23, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Leroy Eason appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his

motion to compel the government to move for a post-conviction sentence reduction.

After careful review, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Eason’s motion, because he did not meet his burden of showing that the government’s

refusal to move for a sentence reduction was premised on an unconstitutional motive
-2-

or was not rationally related to a legitimate government end. See United States v.

Marks, 244 F.3d 971, 975 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00172-CR

JAMES WILEY BARNES, III,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-586-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Wiley Barnes, III appeals the trial court’s revocation of his deferred 

adjudication community supervision and imposition of a six-year prison sentence. We 

will affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Barnes had entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which he pled guilty to 

the second-degree felony offense of aggravated assault—threat with a deadly weapon 

and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years, 

beginning June 20, 2006. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt on March 21, 2007, 
Barnes v. State Page 2

alleging fifteen violations of community supervision. After an April 27, 2007 hearing, 

on April 30, 2007, the trial court found Barnes guilty and assessed the six-year sentence. 

Barnes appeals, asserting in two issues that he did not fail to avoid injurious or vicious 

habits and that he did not fail to avoid contact with the victim.

The State points out that Barnes may not raise these issues under the version of 

section 5(b) of article 42.12 in effect at the time of Barnes’s guilty plea and the 

adjudication proceedings.

A defendant was statutorily prohibited from complaining on appeal of errors 

occurring at the hearing on the State’s motion to proceed to adjudication. Gray v. State,

134 S.W.3d 471, 472 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, pet. denied) (citing Connolly v. State, 983 

S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)). At the time relevant to this case, section 5(b) 

provided: “The defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the 

court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No 

appeal may be taken from this determination.” See Act of May 28, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 

1308, § 5, 2007 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4404, 4405 (amending section 5(b) to provide that the 

trial court’s “determination is reviewable in the same manner as a revocation hearing 

conducted under Section 21” of Article 42.12) (emphasis added) (current version at TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008)); see Durgan v. State, 240 

S.W.3d 875, 877-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Section 5(b) of article 42.12 has been amended to treat decisions to adjudicate 

similarly to decisions to revoke community supervision, but the amended statute 
Barnes v. State Page 3

applies only to decisions to adjudicate made on or after June 15, 2007. Durgan, 240

S.W.3d at 877 n.1; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b).

Under the applicable law, we dismiss Barnes’s two issues. The trial court’s 

judgment is affirmed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed April 1, 2009

Do not publish

[CR25]
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05862]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9019-9]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 03/02/2015 through 03/06/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20150057, Draft EIS, APHIS, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Asian Longhorned 
Beetle Eradication Program, Comment Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: 
Jim E. Warren 202-316-3216.
EIS No. 20150058, Final EIS, USA, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) 
Training and Operations, Review Period Ends: 04/13/2015, Contact: 
Pamela M. Klinger 210-466-1595.
EIS No. 20150059, Draft EIS, NMFS, WA, The Makah Tribe Request to Hunt 
Gray Whales, Comment Period Ends: 06/11/2015, Contact: Steve Stone 503-
231-2317.
EIS No. 20150060, Draft Supplement, TVA, TN, Integrated Resource Plan, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Charles P. Nicholson 865-632-
3582.
EIS No. 20150061, Draft EIS, CALTRANS, CA, SR 710 North Improvements, 
Comment Period Ends: 07/06/2015, Contact: Garrett Damrath 213-897-0357.
EIS No. 20150062, Draft EIS, USFS, CA,Westside Fire Recovery Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 04/13/2015, Contact: Wendy Coats 530-841-4470.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service requested and 
was granted approval to shorten the public comment period for this 
Draft EIS from 45 to 30 days, reflecting the President's Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) alternative arrangements granted in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1506.11.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-05862 Filed 3-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60356

USDC No. 2:96-CR-012-S

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

QUARTET WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(2:96-CR-012-S)

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

February 11, 1998

Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Quartet Williams has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and we have independently reviewed the brief and record and found

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
' I 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D C 

Serial.& 0 Q 6 0 5 

Msjor General A.C, Smith, USA 

O!tice ot tbe Chi.et ot Military History 

Departmnt ot the ArtlfT 

We.sbiDgtozl 25, J). C • 

Dear Sirs 

1? SEP 1954 

'l'.be draft of a "History ~ the MUitaZ)' Intelligence 

Division, Departmant o:t the Arrq General statt." baa been 

reviewed by Mr. WU, 1 am r. hied.JJBn or th1a Agency. Be 

baa 1114:1cated a tev amenamen.ta 111 pencilled. mtee on the 

IZBDUBcript, am. add.a the comment that, tboush ve17 brief., 

the bietor.Y does cover whe.t he rega:rda as the most important features and davelopnl!lnts or the period 1919-1941. 

In case there ia need to consult him turtber 1n 

th1a cmmection Mr. hiedma.n will be g1 ei to confer Yi tr 

Colonel B1clvell.. lie can be i-eache4 on Bxtena1on 6<>493. 

Inc1t Ma 

Sil'lcereJ.T, 

al Ui,fR&ST 

t.. a. raos!r 

llear Admiral., v. s. lfa'VJ' 

Chief' ot Staff 

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352f]_ , 

I 

I 

I -~ 

I 

I 

' j
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,100
<PP&E>                                         558,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               (200,100)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 568,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,400
<BONDS>                                        370,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   562,600
<SALES>                                        188,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               661,300
<CGS>                                           28,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  665,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (29,500)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (19,500)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (65,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joel F.
Gemunder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Omnicare, Inc. (the
Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The
 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,
 2008 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
 78o(d)); and
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | The
 information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                     

Date: July 31,
2008

| |                                        | 
| | -------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Joel F. Gemunder                   | 
| |                                        | 
| | Joel F.
 Gemunder                      | 
| | President
 and Chief Executive Officer

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6033

THOMAS ANDREW ESTES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM ANDERSON, Superintendent; MIKE EASLEY,

Attorney General of North Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-257-2-1-MU)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Andrew Estes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Andrew Estes seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59

motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Estes v. Anderson, No. CA-00-257-2-1-MU

(W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 8, 2000; entered Dec. 11, 2000). 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