alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.4

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

This Amendment to the Employment Agreement between Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc., an Indiana corporation (the Company), and
Judith D. Loughran (the Executive) is dated as of July 30, 2010.

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive
desire to amend certain provisions of the Executives Employment Agreement dated as of April 5, 2004, as thereafter amended (the Employment Agreement).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements contained herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree as
follows:



| | 1. | The term of employment of the Executive provided for in Section 1 of the Employment Agreement shall end on December 31, 2015, unless earlier terminated
pursuant to Section 4 of the Employment Agreement.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The cash compensation provided for in Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be increased from $287,500 per year to $302,500 per year, beginning
August 1, 2011. All other provisions of Section 3(a) shall remain unchanged.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Sections 3(b) through 3(d) of the Employment Agreement, and all references thereto, shall be renumbered as Sections 3(c) through 3(e), respectively, and the following
new Section 3(b) shall be added to the Employment Agreement:
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Annual Bonuses. For each of the
fiscal years during the Employment Period, the Executive shall be eligible for an annual performance bonus in an amount and subject to the attainment of performance objectives (if any) determined by the Board in its sole discretion.

All of the provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date written above.



|                             |  |                         |  |  |  |                       
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.
|                             |  |                         | 
|By:                          |  | /s/ Richard E. Lundin   |  |  |  | /s/ Judith D. Loughran
|Title:                       |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Judith D. Loughran
Mirna HERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Tracy Lamar WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2113

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
tannourji09comp.htm


    Exhibit
10.12

    2009
Sales Incentive Plan

    Mike
Tannourji

      Senior
Vice President Sales

    


    Objective:                                 Bookings
growth

     Board Plan
Over-Achievement

    


    


    


    
      	
              QUARTERLY
      INCENTIVE BONUS

            	
               

              · Achieve
      100% Quarterly Board Plan

              Bookings
      - OR - 100% of Board Plan YTD

              at
      end of Quarter

               

               

            	
               

               

              $20,000/quarter

            
	
              QUARTERLY
      RETENTION BONUS

            	
               

              · Achieve
      Quarterly Retention of

                          High
      Value Clients  --  75%

               

            	
              $5,000/quarter

              ($20,000/year)

            
	
               

               

               

               

              ANNUAL
      OVER ACHIEVEMENT

            	
               

               

               

              · Achieve
      Annual Board Plan but Less than Sales Plan

                                2%
      commission

              · Achieve
      or Exceed Sales Plan

                                5%
      commission

               

               

               

            	
              Commission
      applies to all bookings in excess of Annual Board Plan

               

            
	
               

              ANNUAL
      MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN ACHIEVEMENT

               

            	
                     Achieve
      Key Measures for 2009 per MIP

            	
              $25,000

            
	
               

              TOTAL
      OPPORTUNITY

               

            	
                     Achieve
      all quarterly and annual targets

            	
              $125,000/year

            


    

    ** Sales
and Board Plan Bookings based on subscription sales
NUMBER 13-18-00491-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JAVIER REYES, Appellant,

v.

NERY VALDEZ, Appellee.

On appeal from the 389th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s unopposed motion to supplement the 

record and appellant’s sixth and seventh motions for extension of time to file the brief. 

The reporter’s record was filed on December 20, 2018, and appellant’s brief was originally 

due to be filed thirty days thereafter. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). This Court has 

previously granted appellant five extensions of time totaling 104 days to file the brief. 
2

Appellant has advised this Court that she is “almost done” completing appellant’s brief 

but upon rechecking the appellate record, she has discovered that four hearings were 

held but not transcribed: September 12, 2017, October 18, 2017, November 15, 2017, 

and January 22, 2018. It is unknown whether a record was made of these hearings. 

Counsel is requesting one week to file the brief after the supplemental reporter’s record 

is filed.

When a relevant item has been omitted from the reporter’s record, the appellate 

court may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate 

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(d). Accordingly, appellant’s unopposed motion to supplement the reporter’s record 

is GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED. 

The court reporter of the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County is directed to inform 

this Court within ten days from the date of this order whether a reporter’s record was 

made of hearings held on September 12, 2017, October 18, 2017, November 15, 2017, 

and January 22, 2018. If a record was made, the reporter is directed to prepare a 

supplemental reporter’s record. The supplemental record, if any, shall be filed with this 

Court within 30 days from the date of this order. 

This appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental reporter’s record 

or upon further order of this Court. Appellant’s sixth and seventh motions for extension 

of time to file the brief are GRANTED. Appellant is ordered to file the brief seven days 

after the date this cause is reinstated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
3

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

10th day of May, 2019.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

EILEEN GLOSTER,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-3022 

LT Case No. 2020-CF-993-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed August 9, 2022 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Hernando County, 

Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean 

Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EVANDER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
|  | (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                  |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                                  |
| Date:  November 25, 2015 |   | Brett Bertolami                                       |
|                          |   | Brett Bertolami                                       |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
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.

August 26 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk August 26 , 2016

15 3593 ( 50 )

CITY OF PONTIAC

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

, SC: 15 3593

v COA: 3 24548

Oakland CC: 2014

- 139761

- CC

OTTAWA TOWER II, L.L.C., and CHARLES R.

STEPHENS, as Trustee of NORTH BAY

DRYWALL, INC., PROFIT SHARING PLAN &

TRUST

, Defendants

- Appellee s

, and

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, f/k/a THE

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY,

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY,

MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES,

Defendants

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the County of Oakland to file a brief

amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 24 , 2016, is

accepted for filing

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1






                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report 
(Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1) of CytRx Corporation of our report dated February
19, 1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of CytRx 
Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CytRx Corporation
listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 Nos. 33-48706 pertaining to the 401(k) Plan Interests of CytRx
Corporation Common Stock, 33-93816 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan of
CytRx Corporation, and 33-93818 pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan of
CytRx Corporation, and on Form S-3 No. 33-93820 and the related prospectus of
CytRx Corporation for the registration of 57,427 shares of its Common Stock, of
our report dated February 19, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1) of CytRx Corporation.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
April 28, 1997
Exhibit 10.61


            SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO FORM OF 


            SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 


            Each of the parties identified in the table below is party to a severance agreement with Remington Arms Company, Inc. (the “Company”) substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 10.60 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, previously filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 20, 2009. Each
            party’s severance agreement is identical except for such party’s position. 


             


            
                	
                            Employee Name

                        	
                            Position

                        
	
                            John M. Dwyer, Jr.

                        	
                            Chief Technology Officer

                        
	
                            Igor Popov

                        	
                            Chief Supply Chain Officer
Terrance Vaughntay MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Filed 8/7/14 P. v. Davis CA2/4 

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 FOUR 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

WYNTON DAVIS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B250773 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BA405146) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Melissa A. Fair, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 A jury convicted defendant Wynton Davis of one count of receiving aid by 

misrepresentation of more than $950 in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 

section 10980, subdivision (c)(2), and two counts of perjury by false application 

for aid in violation of Penal Code section 118, subdivision (a). The trial court 

placed him on probation for three years subject to various terms and conditions, 

including that he pay restitution of $7,784. He appeals from the judgment (order 

granting probation). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

 Between August 2011 and March 2012, defendant submitted applications 

under penalty of perjury for child care reimbursement to Cal Works. He 

represented that he had no job and that one of his two sons lived with him. Based 

on these representations, he received aid in the sum of $7,784 in reimbursements 

and food stamps. In fact, the son lived with his mother, rendering defendant 

ineligible for aid. 

DISCUSSION 

 After review of the record, defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed an 

opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. 

 We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any 

contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received 

to date. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues 

exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate 
3

review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 

528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 WILLHITE, J. 

 We concur: 

 EPSTEIN, P. J. 

 EDMON, J.* 

*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

 to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
# Calaveras County Environmental Management Agency Brian S. Moss+ Age ncy A dminj s tra to r I Dir ec tor of Envi ro nmenta l H eal t h I Air P o llu tio n Co nt ro l O fficer 

# R !E D July 1o, 2o14 

# JUL f 

# 5 20f4 Gerardo C. Rios Chief, Air Permits Office (Air-3) EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Fra n c isco , CA 94105 SUBJECT: 40 CFR Part 51 , Appendix S Applicability De a r M r . Rios: 

# -- - --- - --------

This lette r is in response to yo ur r e qu est f o r additional inform ation rega rdin g compliance w ith the federal new source re v ie w (NS R) req uirements for o z o ne whi le , in th e interim , requirements consistent with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone are incorporated into our NSR program . In particular , you have asked us t o acknowledge the applicability of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, Appendix S to new and modified major sources during the period prior t o Fed / EPA 's approval of a NSR program applicable to our ozone nonattainm e nt area . As yo u are awa re , the Calaveras County Air Po llution Control Di strict is cur ren t ly classified as a m oderate non att a inment a rea und e r the 19 97 ozone NAAQS a nd as a m argina l nonattainment area unde r th e 2008 ozo n e NAAQS. A new NSR program submi tt al was d u e to Fed / EPA by June 13, 2013 for th e 1 997 o z o n e NAAQS, wh il e an NSR program revision is due by July 20 , 2015 f or the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accord in g l y , we a re planning on adopting a n ew rul e in 20 15 based on the California Air Resources Boa rd Model Rul e. Until Fed/EPA takes a fin a l action to approve our n ew NSR program, we ac k nowledge that th e applicable requirements of 40 C FR part 5 1, Appendix S a ppl y to any n ew maj or so urce or m a jor modific ation of a major source , as d efin e d therein, for so u rces emitt in g volatile orga ni c co mpound s (VOCs) o r nitrogen oxides ( NO x) as ozon e precu rsors.

**~--- ~**  

### : ri a :J. ss , Admi ni st r a

to r Environmental Managemen t Agency

cc : Ca l ave ra s County Ai r Pollut i o n Cont ro l Board
Gove rnment Cente r , 891 Mo un ta in Ranch Road, San An dreas, C A 95249-9 7 09

· nviro nm ent a l H ea lth Depa rtme n t • Onsite Wastewate r Dep artm en/ + Air Polfution Control District • An ima l S ervices • D e partm ent of Ag

r ic u ltur e & W e ights and M e asur e 2 09) 754 -6399 Ex t. I (209) 75 4

- 6400 (209) 754-6399 E xt. 4 (209)754 -6 509 (209) 754-6504 2 09) 754

- 6 722 F ax (209) 754

- 6722 Fax (209) 75 4-6 722 Fax (209) 7 54 -68 15 Fax (209) 754-9256 F ax
Antavis Dewayne THORNTON v. STATE

CR-15-1043

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                              OCULAR SCIENCES, INC.

   STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (BASIC AND DILUTED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                             September 30,                        September 30,
                                                     -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                         2000             1999              2000               1999
                                                     -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Net income per share (basic):

    Net income                                       $ 7,490,000       $10,424,000       $32,100,000       $26,393,000
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Weighted average common shares outstanding        23,242,364        22,933,623        23,120,459        22,790,938
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Net income per share (basic)                     $      0.32       $      0.45       $      1.39       $      1.16
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Net income per share (diluted):

    Net income (diluted):                            $ 7,490,000       $10,424,000       $32,101,000       $26,393,000
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Weighted average common shares outstanding        23,242,364        22,933,623        23,120,459        22,790,938

    Weighted average shares of stock options
        under the treasury stock method                  108,079           420,621           272,771           642,855
                                                     -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------

    Weighted average common and dilutive
        potential common shares outstanding           23,350,443        23,354,244        23,393,230        23,433,793
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

    Net income per share (diluted)                   $      0.32       $      0.45       $      1.37       $      1.13
                                                     ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
</TABLE>



                                       29
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.

July 26, 2016

s0718 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

151945 & (13)(18)(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151945

COA: 325933

Kalkaska CC: 08

- 003014

- FC

DAVID CHRISTIAN DeJONGE

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file supplemental brief is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of

establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for production of

records is DENIED as moot and the motion for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
Alford Leon JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4619

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.