alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2



COMPENSATION POLICY FOR DIRECTORS OF ORCHID BIOSCIENCES, INC.



EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2004



Compensation Policy





|                                                                                   |  |   |       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ------
|Board of Directors:                                                                |  |   |       
|                                                                                   | 
|Annual retainer-chairperson                                                        |  | $ | 25,000
|Annual retainer-director                                                           |  | $ | 12,500
|Meeting fee                                                                        |  | $ | 3,000 
|Telephonic meetings will be paid at the prorated level of $500 per hour.           |  |   |       
|                                                                                   | 
|Audit Committee:                                                                   |  |   |       
|                                                                                   | 
|Annual retainer-chairperson                                                        |  | $ | 5,000 
|Annual retainer-committee members                                                  |  | $ | 1,500 
|Meeting fee:                                                                       |  | $ | 1,000 
|Meeting fee (in person for meetings held on days separate from full Board meeting) |  | $ | 3,000 
|Telephonic meetings will be paid at the prorated level of $500 per hour.           |  |   |       
|                                                                                   | 
|Compensation Committee:                                                            |  |   |       
|                                                                                   | 
|No annual retainer to be paid to compensation committee chairperson or members.    |  |   |       
|Meeting fee                                                                        |  | $ | 1,000 
|Meeting fee (in person meetings held on days separate from full Board meeting)     |  | $ | 3,000 
|Telephonic meetings will be paid at the prorated level of $500 per hour.           |  |   |       



Board members and
committee members receive stock option grants both upon joining the Board and on an annual basis in line with recommendations by the Compensation Committee, which grants are non-qualified stock options under our 2000 Employee, Director and
Consultant Stock Incentive Plan, which grants typically vest in monthly increments over 4 years.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Kijai Khamisi, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18cv87
vs.
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Joseph Deters, et al.,
Defendant(s).

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed
the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 20, 2018 a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 99), Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed objections to such Report and Recommendation
(Docs. 102, 104, 105, 106, and 107). Defendants filed responses to the objections (Doc. 108 and
109). Plaintiffs then filed supplemental objections (Doc. 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
118 and 119).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, defendants Samuel, Marsh, and Moore’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 71) is
GRANTED and these defendants are DISMISSED from the lawsuit.

Plaintiff's motions to set aside state court judgments (Docs. 72, 74, 75, 76, and 77) are


DENIED.
Plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint (Docs. 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82) are DENIED.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting
the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in good faith, therefore, plaintiff is denied
leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in
the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v, Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6" Cir. 1999), overruling in
part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6" Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Akt). Watt,

Judge Susan J. Mott
United States District Court
#### Janet W. Salemi, Respondent, v Robert Salemi, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 737]

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated November 14, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed him to pay nondurational maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month and an attorney’s fee in the sum of $7,500.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, the facts, and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff nondurational maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month, and substituting therefor a provision directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff maintenance in the sum of $1,000 per month for a period of five years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in its calculation of the defendant’s annual gross income. Thus, we reduce the award of nondurational maintenance in the sum of $2,000 per month to the sum of $1,000 per month for a period of five years, upon consideration of the defendant’s income and the parties’ living expenses *(see Friedman v Friedman,*309 AD2d 830, 831 [2003]). Further, upon consideration of the parties’ respective ages and abilities, and the duration of the marriage, maintenance should have been awarded for a period of only five years.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $7,500 *(see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; *Meza v Meza,*294 AD2d 414, 416 [2002]; *Barone v Barone,*292 AD2d 481, 483 [2002]). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4276 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay 

Owingeh Pueblo. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Mr. LUJA ́N (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in 

trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OHKAY OWINGEH PUEBLO LEASING AUTHOR4 ITY. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR 99-YEAR LEASES.—Sub6 section (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 

7 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sen8 tence by inserting ‘‘and lands held in trust for Ohkay 

9 Owingeh Pueblo’’ after ‘‘of land on the Devils Lake Sioux 

10 Reservation,’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4276 IH

1 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub2 section (a) shall apply to any lease entered into or renewed 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Globix Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M. Dennerlein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:
               (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
               13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

               (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents in
               all material respects the financial condition and result of
               operations of the Company.


Date: February 8, 2005                               GLOBIX CORPORATION



                                                     /S/ Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12 (a)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
                                             AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

                                  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                                                        Years ended December 31
                                                    -----------------------------------------------------------------
 (Dollars in millions)                                 2000          1999         1998         1997          1996
                                                    ------------  -----------  ------------ ------------  -----------
 <S>                                                <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>
 Net earnings ....................................  $   5,192     $   4,443    $   3,796    $   3,256     $   2,817
 Provision for income taxes ......................      1,912         1,653        1,364        1,166         1,231
 Minority interest ...............................        214           186          148          121           167
                                                    ------------  -----------  ------------ ------------  -----------

 Earnings before income taxes and minority
   interest ......................................      7,318         6,282        5,308        4,543         4,215
                                                    ------------  -----------  ------------ ------------  -----------

 Fixed charges:
   Interest ......................................     11,415         9,607        9,122        7,762         7,402
   One-third of rentals ..........................        392           356          296          245           182
                                                    ------------  -----------  ------------ ------------  -----------

 Total fixed charges .............................     11,807         9,963        9,418        8,007         7,584
 Less interest capitalized, net of amortization ..       (121)          (87)         (88)         (52)          (41)
                                                    ------------  -----------  ------------ ------------  -----------

 Earnings before income taxes and minority
   interest, plus fixed charges ..................   $ 19,004      $ 16,158     $ 14,638     $ 12,498      $ 11,758
                                                    ============  ===========  ============ ============  ===========

 Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..............       1.61         1.62          1.55         1.56         1.55
                                                    ============  ===========  ============ ============  ===========
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT STANLEY GORDON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 17452

D.C. No. 5:10

- cv

- 05399

- EJD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 23, 2021 * *

Before: GOODWIN, SILVERMAN , and BRESS , Circuit Judges.

Robert Stanley Gordon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s

summary judgment for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”)

following Met L ife’s denial of Gordon’s application for long

- term disability

benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

APR 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001

- 1461. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. Where , as here, the district court conduc t ed a de novo review of an

ERISA plan administrator’s decision, we review for cl ear error its findings of fact

.

Silver v. Exec

. Car Leasing Long

- Term Disability Plan , 466 F.3d 727, 732

- 33 (9th

Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The record supports the district court’s finding that Gordon was not

“disabled” as defined by the plan, that is, that he was not unable to work at his own

occupation for any employer in his local economy during the relevant time period

.

See Easley v. Cromartie , 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (in reviewing for clear error, an

appellate court will reverse only if “on the entire evidence,” it is “left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”).

We d o not consider matters raised for the f irst time on appeal, including

Gordon’s contention that the administrative record is incomplete. See Padgett v.

Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009 ) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11


                       HOST MARRIOTT SERVICES CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATIONS OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE (1)
                     (IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                      1998                              1997
                                                          -----------------------------     ------------------------------
                                                             BASIC         DILUTED             BASIC          DILUTED
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- --- ------------- ----------------
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>               <C>             <C>

Net income available to common shareholders                     $24.1            $24.1             $20.8            $20.8
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- --- ------------- ----------------

Shares:
   Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                                         34.0             34.0              34.6             34.6
   Assuming distribution of shares issuable for
      employee stock options, less shares assumed
      purchased at applicable market (1)                          ---              0.4               ---              0.4
   Assuming distribution of shares issuable for Host
      Marriott Corporation stock options held by
      Marriott International employees, less shares
      assumed purchased at applicable market (1)                  ---              0.8               ---              1.0
   Assuming distribution of shares issuable for Host
      Marriott Corporation deferred stock held by
      Marriott International employees, less shares
      assumed purchased at applicable market (1)                  ---              0.1               ---              0.2
   Assuming distribution of shares granted under
      deferred stock incentive plan, less shares
      assumed purchased at applicable market (1)                  ---              0.3               ---              0.3
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- --- ------------- ----------------

Total weighted average common shares outstanding                 34.0             35.6              34.6             36.5
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- --- ------------- ----------------

Income per common share                                         $0.71            $0.68             $0.60            $0.57
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- --- ------------- ----------------

<FN>


(1)   The applicable market price for diluted income per common share equals the
      average market price for the fiscal year.

</FN>
</TABLE>
                                      E-1
EXHIBIT 21


                       HOST MARRIOTT SERVICES CORPORATION
                             LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                     DOMESTIC                                                       FOREIGN
-----------------------------------------------        ---------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>

State:  California                                          Country:  Australia
    The Gift Collection, Inc.                                    Marriott Airport Concessions Pty Ltd.
    Host Gifts, Inc.                                             Host Services Pty Ltd.

State:  Delaware                                            Country:  Canada
    Host International, Inc.                                     Host International of Canada, Ltd.
    Host Marriott Tollroads, Inc.
    Michigan Host, Inc.                                     Country:  Malaysia
    Host Services of New York, Inc.                              Malay Host Sdn. Bhd.
    Las Vegas Terminal Restaurants, Inc.
    Turnpike Restaurants, Inc.                              Country:  The Netherlands
    Host Marriott Services U.S.A., Inc.                          Horeca Exploitative Maatschappij Schiphol, B.V.
    HMS Holdings, Inc.                                           Host of Holland B.V.
    Cincinnati Terminal Services, Inc.
    Cleveland Airport Services, Inc.
    Marriott Airport Terminal Services, Inc.

State:  Florida
    Sunshine Parkway Restaurants, Inc.

State:  Kansas
    Host International, Inc. of Kansas

State:  Maryland
    Host International, Inc. of Maryland
    Marriott Family Restaurants, Inc.

State:  Ohio
    Gladieux Corporation

State:  Texas
    Host Services, Inc.

</TABLE>



                                      E-2
Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Echeverria CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS ECHEVERRIA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B245330

(Super. Ct. No. BA401663)

(Los Angeles County)

Carlos Echeverria appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no 

contest to attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 211) and admitted a Penal Code 

section 1170, subdivision (h)(3) allegation (providing that any sentence imposed for the 

charged crime shall be served in state prison). The trial court suspended the imposition 

of sentence, and placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months, with various terms 

and conditions. 

Antonio Alejo was walking on Melrose Avenue in Los Angeles on August 

20, 2012, shortly after 10:00 p.m. Appellant approached Alejo, threatened him with a 

stick, and said, "Hey, give me money." 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a 

brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to 
2

advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from 

appellant. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 

441.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.
3

Anne H. Egerton, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Jonathan P. Milberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00403-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 89th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC89-CV2022-1635

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SARA E. BINION AND WENDY M. BINION, Appellants

V.

ELIZABETH VALENCIA ALLEN, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On February 2, 2023, we notified appellants that their brief had not been filed 

as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellants filed 

with the court an appellants’ brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining 

the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellants have failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 23, 2023
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN RAYMOND KRUSPE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2150

[July 3, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502017CF003026A.

Louis G. Carres, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Johnnie D. Cook, :

:

Plaintiff(s), :

: Case Number: 1:17cv161

vs. :

: Judge Susan J. Dlott

Claude Woodard, :

:

Defendant(s). :

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on September 12, 2017 (Doc. 18), to whom this case was

referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and

that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired September 26, 2017,

hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 15 and 16) are GRANTED. This

matter is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________

Judge Susan J. Dlott

United States District Court