alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Glu_Ex_10_17


		
			Exhibit 10.17 
		

		
			GLU MOBILE INC. 
		

		
			SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION TERMS 
		

		
			SCOTT J. LEICHTNER
		

		
			 
		

		
			The following is a summary of the compensation terms for Scott J. Leichtner, our Vice President and General Counsel:  
		

		
			 
		

		
			On October 25, 2018, the Compensation Committee of Glu’s Board of Directors approved an increase of Mr. Leichtner’s annual base salary from $320,000 to $345,000, effective as of October 1, 2018.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mr. Leichtner is eligible to participate in Glu’s 2019 Executive Bonus Plan and his target bonus and maximum bonus remain at 50% of his annual base salary and 100% of his annual base salary, respectively.   Pursuant to Glu’s 2019 Executive Bonus Plan, Mr. Leichtner will receive the maximum cash bonus (i.e., 100% of his annual base salary) if Glu both (1) achieves a minimum Adjusted EBITDA goal for 2019 (the “Adjusted EBITDA Threshold”) and (2) generates bookings for 2019 that equal or exceed a specified maximum level of performance (the “Maximum Bookings Goal”). If Glu does not achieve the Maximum Bookings Goal, Mr. Leichtner can earn (1) his target bonus amount (i.e., 50% of his maximum bonus) if Glu achieves the Adjusted EBITDA Threshold and generates 2019 bookings that are approximately 4% below the Maximum Bookings Goal and (2) 50% of his target bonus amount (i.e., 25% of his maximum bonus) if Glu achieves the Adjusted EBITDA Threshold and generates 2019 bookings that are approximately 8% below the Maximum Bookings Goal (the “Minimum Bookings Goal”). To the extent that Glu achieves the Adjusted EBITDA Threshold and generates bookings between two of the goals, Mr. Leichtner’s bonus amount will be calculated on a linear basis.     If Glu either does not achieve the Adjusted EBITDA Threshold or the Minimum Bookings Goal, then Mr. Leichtner will not receive a cash bonus under Glu’s 2019 Executive Bonus Plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,596
<PP&E>                                          40,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 527,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,622
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   527,428
<SALES>                                        175,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,673
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  757,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (581,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (581,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (452,508)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,033,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EX PARTE Deandre COOPER

1160295 (CR-15-1323)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

3-10-2017

Cert. denied.
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-443612

NO. 2018-BA-0438

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 1, 2018

BAR ADMISSIONS PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner shall continue to comply with the terms of the monitoring agreement he signed with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program ("JLAP") on February 23, 2018.

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner's JLAP agreement. However, petitioner's conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall authorize the Executive Director of JLAP to report any violations of the JLAP agreement to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC").

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner's JLAP agreement, the Executive Director of JLAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner's progress and participation in JLAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner's continued participation in JLAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from JLAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

6. Petitioner shall cooperate with JLAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by JLAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

**CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.**

GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., dissents.

I would reject conditional admission for a period of one year.
EX PARTE Steven CRENSHAW

1160357 (CR-15-1220)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. XAVIER D. ECCLESTON, a/k/a Xavier Daniel Eccleston, a/k/a X , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cr - 00567

- PJM

- 3; 8:17

- cv - 00729

- PJM )

Submitted : September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. C. Justin Brown, LAW OFFICE OF C. JUSTIN BROWN, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Xavier D. Eccleston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a ce rtificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockr ell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitu tional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Eccleston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit
13





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 Commtouch Software Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Gideon Mantel and
Ron Ela, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our
knowledge:





(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.





/s/Gideon Mantel
                
                /s/Ron ElaGideon
      Mantel
                
                Ron
      ElaChief
      Executive Officer
                
                Chief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      26, 2010
                
                March
      26, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Iakeem Jamon HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-86

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

191) ll-K-(I)-4 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 191 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

%& «o # 1 

II-K-(I)-4 

ENERGY CONSERVATION IN THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR, 

1954-1900. 

Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 

November 1974. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-4
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  I, Jane  Morlok,  Chief  Financial
Officer and Co-Chief Executive Officer of Breda Telephone Corp., certify that to
my knowledge (i) Breda  Telephone  Corp.'s  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended  December  31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Breda
Telephone Corp.

Date: April 12, 2005


                                        /s/ Jane Morlok
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer
                                        and Co-Chief Executive Officer


                                       E-4
.^^^^^^^^, , :;n5TvriQM

Ma y10 , 201 0 Mr
. Denni s J
. DeVan y Chief , Essentia l Servic e Divisio n X-5 3 Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U S Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve. , S E Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 Re : Orde r2010-2-16 , Docke t OST-2005-2073 4 Dea rMr
. DeVany , Pleas e accep t thi s lette ro fsuppor t i n respons e t o you rlette ro fApri l 27 , 2010 , requestin g comment s o n Essentia l Ai rServic e proposal s fo rth e Mi d Ohi o Valle y Regiona l Airport
. Th e Chambe ro fCommerc e strongl ysupport s th e selectio n o f Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airline s b yth e Mi d Ohi o Valle yRegiona l Airpor t Authority
. Ou rcommunit yrequire s a leve l o f servic e tha t allow s busines s an d leisur e traveler s t o fl ylocally
. I t i s ou ropinio n tha t th e Gulfstrea m Internationa l Airline s bi d ha s th e greates t potentia l fo rthi s t o occur . Gulfstrea m Ai rwoul d offe r2 4 flight s a week , fou rnon-sto p roun d trip s eac h servic e day , t o Clevelan d Hopkin s Airport
. Thi s bes t meet s th e need s o fou rcommunity
. Th e fou r dail yflight s wit h 1 9 passenge raircraf t giv e ou rairpor t tru e passenge rgrowt h potentia l an d th e kin d o fservic e w e hav e neede d fo rth e pas t severa l years . No t havin g thos e fou rdail yflight s coul d b e a game-change rfo rou rloca l econom yan d ou rcommunit ya s a whole
. Unles s th e leve l o f servic e increases , loca l traveler s wil l continu e t o loo k fo r othe rpoint s o f departure
. Representin g ou r400-plu s busines s member s an d thei rove r25,00 0 employees , th e Chambe ro f Commerc e o fth e Mid-Ohi o Valle yrespectfull yrequest s tha t th e Gulfstrea m Air , 2 4 fligh t a wee k

option , b e awarde d th e Essentia l Ai rServic e contrac t fo rth e Mi d Ohi o Valle yRegiona l Airport
. Than k yo u fo ryou rconsideratio n o fthi s request . Sincerely ,
Bonni e G;9dy,JI0 M Presiden t arwCE O

Chambe ro f Commerc e o fth e Mid-Ohi o Valle y 21 4 Eight h Street , Parkersburg , W V 2610 1 304-422-358 8 • info@movchamber.or g • www.movchamber.or g
Demetrius A. BEASLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5043

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL JOSEPH BLOOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

E. K. McDANIEL; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15072 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00610-RCJ-VPC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Joseph Bloor, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his administrative 

remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Andres v. Marshall, 867 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate 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

OCT 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15072 

F.3d 1076, 1077 (9th Cir. 2017). We reverse and remand.

The district court screened and dismissed Bloor’s complaint on the basis that 

Bloor had not pursued his grievances beyond the first level as required under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, Bloor alleged in his complaint that 

defendants refused to respond to his grievance, and he argued in his motion for 

reconsideration that his attempt to file a second-level grievance was rejected for 

lack of documentation, which he could not provide because he attached it to his 

prior, unanswered grievance. Thus, the district court erred in concluding at this 

early stage of the proceedings, before defendants have appeared, that 

administrative remedies were available to Bloor. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“[O]nly in rare cases will a district court be 

able to conclude from the face of the complaint that a prisoner has not exhausted 

his administrative remedies and that he is without a valid excuse.” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211-17 

(2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which defendants must raise 

and prove); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not 

required where administrative remedies are “effectively unavailable”). We reverse 

the judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
Beaver REED Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Jerrod MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4297

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 15, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Walter C. Holton, Jr., HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jerrod Murray pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2012). The district court concluded that either of Murray’s prior North Carolina convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon or possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction warranted application of a base offense level of 20 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015). Murray appeals the 42-month sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that neither prior crime qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

“[W]e review de novo whether a defendant’s prior offense qualifies as a crime of violence under the career offender guideline.” *United States v. Riley,*856 F.3d 326, 327-28 (4th Cir. 2017). Murray was indicted for, and pled guilty to, possession of a weapon of mass death and destruction, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 (2015). We have previously held that such a conviction qualifies as a crime of violence under the residual clause of the Guidelines.*
      *United States v. Hood,*628 F.3d 669, 672-73 (4th Cir, 2010). Although Murray argues that the residual clause is void for vagueness and, thus, that possession of a sawed-off shotgun no longer constitutes a crime of violence, the Supreme Court’s *113decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), forecloses his argument.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

We need not address Murray’s arguments regarding his conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abraham NEGRETE-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51324 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Abraham Negrete-Perez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abraham Negrete-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Negrete-Perez has not filed a response. Although Negrete-Perez remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Joe Brayboy, III

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00570

- CV

Trial court case number: 2004

- 66585

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Relator Joe Brayboy III filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, but he has failed to provide the court with a hearing record of either the June 5 or June 18 hearings. The State argues

that the failure to provide a copy of the hearing records requires d enial of the petition. As the party seeking relief, relator ha s the burden to provide a sufficient record to establish his right to relief.

See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) ; cf. Ex Parte McKeand , 454 S.W.3d 52, 54 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2014, no pet.)

.

The court will consider this petition without the benefit of the hearing records unless relator files the hearing records from the June 5 and June 18 hearings within 2 0 days of the date of this

order

. Cf

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c), 38.9(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

_

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _ August 30, 2018
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-36460 of eOn Communications Corporation (the“Company”) on Form S-8 of our report dated August 29, 2002, which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the Company’s change in its method of accounting for goodwill and other intangibleassets to conform with FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended July 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 18, 2005