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


 


Griffon Corporation


Director Compensation Program


(adopted as of January 30, 2013)


 


Each member of the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Griffon Corporation (the “Company”) who is not an employee of the Company (each a “Non-employee
Director”) shall receive compensation for such person’s services as a member of the Board as outlined in this Director
Compensation Program.


 


Cash Compensation


 


Annual Retainer Fees


 


		·	Annual retainer fee in the amount of $45,000



		·	Additional annual retainer fee in the amount of $75,000 for the Non-executive
Chairman of the Board



		·	Additional annual retainer fee for the Chairmen of the following Committees:



		o	Audit – $12,500



		o	Compensation – $10,000



		o	Nominating and Corporate Governance – $5,000



		·	Additional annual retainer fee in the amount of $15,000 for the Lead
Independent Director



 


Meeting Fees


 


		·	Fee in the amount of $1,500 for attending any meeting of the Board



		·	Fee in the amount of $2,500 for attending any meeting of the Audit Committee



		·	Fee in the amount of $1,500 for attending any meeting of any committee
other than the Audit Committee



 


Equity Compensation


 


Upon (1) initial election to the Board
and (2) upon re-election to the Board and effective as of the date of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders each year, each Non-employee
Director shall be awarded a grant of 3,333 restricted shares. The restricted shares shall vest ratably at the rate of 1/3 of the
total shares on each of the first, second and third anniversary of the date of grant. If service as a director terminates due to
death or disability, or if a change in control occurs, all shares immediately vest.


 


The number of shares to be granted
annually shall be subject to review from time to time based on the Company's stock price and financial circumstances.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3668 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the special diabetes 

programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 

Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. KIRK, Mr. SPACE, Mr. COLE, 

Mr. KILDEE, and Mr. BECERRA) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL DIABETES 

4 PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIABETES AND INDI5 ANS. 

6 (a) SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIA7 BETES.—Section 330B(b)(2) of the Public Health Service 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–2(b)(2)) is amended— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3668 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

7 years 2012 through 2016.’’. 

8 (b) SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS.— 

9 Section 330C(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 254c–3(c)(2)) is amended— 

11 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

12 the end; 

13 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

14 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(D) $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

17 years 2012 through 2016.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FARREN ST. GEORGE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PEXCO, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-36068 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03076-LRS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2012 ** Seattle, Washington Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Farren St. George appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his employer, Pe xco, LLC, in his employment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

# FILED
OCT 24 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 Washington state looks to federa l law when analyzing retaliation claims. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co. , 350 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). 2 district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Manatt v. Bank of America, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. St. George alleged Pexco laid him o ff in retaliation for a complaint, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.210. To establish a prima faci e case of retaliation under Title VII or WLAD, 1 St. George must show that “1) he engaged in a protected activity; 2) he suffered an adverse employment decision; and 3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because, assuming St. George’s WLAD claim is not preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, he did not show a causal link between the protected activity and his layoff. To demonstrate causation, St. George claims that the plant manager stopped talking to him shortly after he complained and that there was only a tw o-month period between the complaint and the layoff. But St. George admitted th at the supervisors who knew about his3 complaint took no part in the layoff decisi on. And he failed to provide sufficient evidence that the persons who made the layoff decision knew about his complaint. Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc ., 686 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Essential to a causal link is evidence that the employer wa s aware that the plaintiff had engaged in the protected activity.”). His assertion that the plant manager avoided him following the complaint falls short of creating a triable issue of fact. Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co. , 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Conclusory statements without factual support are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”). AFFIRMED.
EX-4.2



 EXHIBIT 4.2 

 

			
	NUMBER	 	SHARES
	*****	 	*****     

 ZIONS BANCORPORATION 
 TOTAL AUTHORIZED: 126,222 SHARES 
 Series H Fixed-Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock 
 WITHOUT PAR VALUE 
 THIS CERTIFIES
THAT                                         
 is the registered holder of                  Shares of Series H Fixed-Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
 In Witness
Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this      day
of              A.D. 20    . 
 UPON REQUEST, AND WITHOUT
CHARGE, THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE COMMON STOCK AND PREFERRED STOCK (INCLUDING ALL SERIES THEREOF) OF THE CORPORATION. 

For value received,                      hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto                  Shares represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint                                        
  Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 

Dated              A.D. 20     

            In presence of
exv10w27wa






Exhibit 10.27(a)




	 	 	 

	Stock Option Award Certificate

(INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION)

	 	

ID: XXXXXXXX

  852 Winter Street

  Waltham, MA 02451






      




	 	 	 	 	 

	«FIRST_NAME» «MIDDLE_NAME» «LAST_NAME»

«ADDRESS_LINE1»

«ADDRESS_LINE2»

«ADDRESS_LINE3»

«CITY», «STATE» «ZIP_CODE»

	 	Option Number:

Plan:


ID:
	 	«NUM»

«PLAN_NAME»


«ID»






      





Effective «GRANT_DATE», you have been granted an Incentive Stock Option to buy
«SHARES_GRANTED» shares of Alkermes, Inc. (the “Company”) common stock at «OPTION_PRICE» per share.




The total option price of the shares granted is «TOTAL_OPTION_PRICE».




The right to acquire the shares subject to the Incentive Stock Option will become fully vested on
the dates shown below. The Incentive Stock Option shall expire on the earlier to occur of: the
10th anniversary of the date of grant or three months after termination of your
service relationship with the Company (unless otherwise provided below).



	 	 	 
	Shares	 	Vesting Date
	«SHARES_PERIOD1»

	 	 
	«SHARES_PERIOD2»
	 	 
	«SHARES_PERIOD3»
	 	 
	«SHARES_PERIOD4»
	 	 







In the event of the termination of your employment with the Company by reason of retirement, the
vesting and exercisability of the Incentive Stock Option shall be accelerated, and the period
during which the Incentive Stock Option (to the extent it is exercisable on the date of retirement)
may be exercised shall be extended, as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Exercise period following date of
	Age at retirement and full years of cumulative service as an	 	 	 	termination of employment by reason of
	employee of the Company at retirement (but not including any	 	 	 	retirement (but not beyond the original term
	service in a non-employment relationship with the Company)	 	Acceleration of vesting date	 	of the Incentive Stock Option)
	60 or over and at least 6 years

	 	1 year
	 	1 year
	62.5 or over and at least 8 years

	 	2 years
	 	2 years
	65 or over and at least 10 years

	 	4 years
	 	3 years






 









 







In the event of the termination of your employment with the Company (but not the termination of a
non-employment relationship with the Company) by reason of death or permanent disability, the
Incentive Stock Option shall vest and be exercisable in full on such termination of employment and
the period during which the Incentive Stock Option (to the extent that it is exercisable on the
date of termination of employment) may be exercised shall be three (3) years following the date of
termination of employment by reason of death or permanent disability, but not beyond the original
term of the Incentive Stock Option.




The foregoing Incentive Stock Option has been granted under and is governed by the terms and
conditions of this Certificate and the Alkermes 2008 Stock Option and Incentive Plan.



	 	 	 

	Alkermes, Inc.

	 	Date











2
#### Slocum, Appellant, *vs.*Carlton et al., Appellees.

(IN CHANCERY.)

Whore the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure ease, interposes a frivolous demurrer, which is overruled, and then, on a decree made against him, appeals to the Supreme Court obviously for delay, and to vex and delay the complainant, but without having any merits reasonably to justify'him in the procedure, this Court will punish him in -ease the decree is affirmed, by decreeing tho payment of all costs and by applying the penalty of the Statute, of twenty-live per cent, interest, by way of damages on the sum decreed, until paid.

This was an appeal from the late U. S. District Court for the County of Racine.

The bill was filed for the foreclosure of a mortgage, to which the defendant, the appellant here, interposed a demurrer which was adjudged frivolous, and upon that brought his appeal to this Court. This Court regarding the procedure of the appellant as vexatious and for delay, and without any special equity on which to repose ,for justification, affirmed the decree made by the Court below and awarded damages.

*Evans*for Appellant.

*Chatfiald*for Appellees.

*By the Court.*

Stow, C. J.

The bill in this case was for the foreclosure of a mortgage; the defendant interposed a frivolous demurrer, which having been overruled, and he neglecting to answer, a decree *pro confesso*was taken. From this decree *the defendant has*appealed *to*this Court.

*166I do not understand that it is pretended that the decree ought to be reversed; and the only question with us isr with what penalty it shall be affirmed. The appeal has evidently been brought, either for the purpose of annoying-the complainant, or for delay; and in either case, the defendant should be subjected to the highest penalty which we are authorized to impose. It may be a public benefit for parties to Understand, that if they will harass their opponents with vexatious litigation,, or if,'on speculation,, they- think it an object to avail themselves of what is called the law’s delay, they must do So at their peril.,, and expect no lenity from this Court. In this ease, the. Statute authorizes us to award twenty-five *per centum*damages and costs; and, with which, the decree is to be affirmed.

Decree affirmed with twenty-five per 'cent, damages and costs.
Minnkota says new method for reducing emissions 'promising' I Prairie Public Broadcasting Page 1 of 2 

Local Coverage: ~ General NewSJO Health & Environmenllo Oil Boom• Politics & Governmentoo 

Minnkota Power 6:58AM VON AJGUSr '2 :0'3 

Minnkota says new method for reducing 

emissions 'promising' 

By DAVE THOMPSON 

The president and CEO of Minnkota Power Cooperative says the use of what's called 

"Cy-Clean" at the Milton R. Young power plant near Center has helped reduce some of 

the plant's emissions- especially in terms of mercmy. 

CyClean technology uses combustion additives that are added to the lignite coal before 

it's burned in the boiler. 

Minnkota CEO Mac McLennan says so far, the results are promising. 

"We found significant benefits on the mercury side," said McLennan. "We will, I think, 

be able to use the CyClean product to meet all of our obligations for mercury control 

that the EPA will put in place in 2015. So we may not have to make any additional 

investments in mereul)· reduction, as a result of putting ()'Clean on our coal." 

:McLennan says reductions in nitrous oxide have proven to be a little trickier. 

"So we have a big chemical expetiment, if you will, going on," said McLennan. "And we 

have four or five inputs to that, including C'yClcan, to try and find NOx reductions. We 

have seen NOx reductions-- but it's not consistent. But we are seeing progress." 

McLennan said coal comes in at different qualities, and that's a challenge. 

Before starting to use C)' 'Clean, Minnkota invested $425 million on emission controls. 

TAGS: ~1innkota PfJ\Ver (/tenn/minnk(,ta··pnv~·f•rl dean coa] (it(~rmiclean-·ro"ll 

Related Content: 

Clean Coal 

Young station to roll 

out new clean. coal 

technology lioosuvoung· 

stat1on~ro11~ou.t-new-cleanhttp:/ /news. prairiepublic. org/post/minnkota-says-new-method-reducing -emissions-promising 11 I 512014 
Minnkota says new method for reducing emissions 'promising' I Prairie Public Broadcasting Page 2 of 2 

0 Comments 

http:/ /news. prairiepublic.org/post/minnkota-says-new-method-reducing -emissions-promising 11 I 512014
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50330 Summary Calendar

DAVID PEREZ-CARDENAS

Petitioner - Appellant

v. LUIS GARCIA, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Respondent - Appellee

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CV-116-H

-------------------- October 4, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court dismissing the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition of David Perez-Cardenas challenging his deportation proceeding is AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17192-17193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Nevada

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Atomic Testing Museum, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las 
Vegas, Nevada 89119.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Ulmer, Board Administrator, 
232 Energy Way, M/S 505, North Las Vegas, Nevada 89030. Phone: (702) 
630-0522; Fax (702) 295-5300 or Email: NSSAB@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration,

[[Page 17193]]

waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

1. Area 2 Yucca Flat Atmospheric Test Site Evaluation of Corrective 
Action Alternatives--Work Plan Item 1
2. Overview of the Waste Acceptance Review Panel--Work Plan Item 
7
3. Update on Underground Testing Area Activity
    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Nevada, welcomes the attendance 
of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every 
effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special 
needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, 
please contact Barbara Ulmer at least seven days in advance of the 
meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be 
filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals 
who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should 
contact Barbara Ulmer at the telephone number listed above. The request 
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable 
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing to Barbara Ulmer at 
the address listed above or at the following Web site: http://nv.energy.gov/nssab/MeetingMinutes.aspx

    Issued at Washington, DC on March 15, 2013.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-06384 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148474

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148474

COA: 312382 

Berrien CC: 2012-000626-FC

JOSE OVIDIO ESCOBAR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-58-000]


Louisiana Generating LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 7, 2015, Louisiana Generating LLC, 
pursuant to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.'s FERC 
Electric Tariff Schedule 24 and Schedule 24-A, submitted a request to 
recover costs associated with acting as a Local Balancing Authority, 
which includes expenses for providing transmission services related to 
load dispatching, scheduling and system control for the year ending 
December 31, 2014.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#feb8bbacbdb1909297909bad8b8e8e918c8abe989b8c9dd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 28, 2015.

    Dated: April 7, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08557 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STERLING ATLANTIC


 


November 15, 2012


 


Mr. Nikolas Konstant


Chairman


EOS Petro


2049 Century Park East


Suite 3670


Los Angeles, CA 90067


 


	Re:	Purchase Agreement


 


DearNik,


 


With respect to the PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE
AGREEMENT dated August 1, 2011 between Eos Petro, Inc. ("Eos") and Sterling Atlantic, LLC ("Sterling"), and
the other related agreements between us executed concurrently therewith (collectively, the "Agreements"), we further
agree as follows:


 


		1.	All terms of the Agreements are hereby incorporated.



 


		2.	Sterling shall purchase up to 50,000 shares and50,000
warrants in EOS post reverse merger and stock split, 2.50 exercise price, five year term, for up to $50,000. In the event funding
is less than $50,000, the shares and warrants shall be reduced proportionately.



 


Agreed:


 


	 	Eos Petro, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Nikolas Konstant
	 	Name:  Nikolas Konstant
	 	Title: Chairman
	 	 	 
	 	Sterling Atlantic, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Franco Scalamandre
	 	Name:
	 	Title: 


 


www.statl.com