alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.15





 EXHIBIT 10.15 

DESCRIPTION OF HORIZON BANCORP 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN 

The Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Horizon Bancorp (the “Company”) adopted an
Executive Officer Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) in 2003 after consultations with a nationally recognized executive compensation consulting firm. The Plan permits executive officers to earn as a bonus a percentage of their salary based on the
achievement of corporate and individual goals in the relevant year. Participants in the Plan are not eligible to participate in the Company’s annual discretionary bonus plan. To receive a bonus under the Plan, the executive officer must be
employed by the Company or one of its subsidiaries on the date the annual bonus payment is made and must not be subject to a performance warning or suspension. The Committee may adjust and amend the Plan at any time in their sole discretion. 

At the beginning of each year, the Committee establishes the minimum earnings target the Company must achieve before any bonuses will be paid
out under the Plan for that year. For 2018, the minimum earnings target was $31.2 million. The Committee also approves a target bonus matrix for each executive officer to be used to calculate the executive officer’s bonus (if any) for the
year (assuming that the minimum earnings target has been met). The matrix for each executive officer specifies the performance measures applicable to the executive officer, the targets for each performance measure and the weight to be assigned to
each performance measure in calculating the bonus if the specified target levels are achieved. 
 Each executive officer has the opportunity
to earn a bonus under the Plan of up to a specified percentage of his base salary. Each of the executive officers has as a performance goal the achievement of a specified level of corporate net income for the year. The matrix for each of the
executive officers also specifies from three to five other performance measures, each of which is dependent upon the executive officer’s areas of responsibilities and varies from year to year to reflect changes in the primary responsibilities
of the office that the executive officer holds. 
 The percentage of base salary that may be earned and the weighting of performance goals
are disclosed each year in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of the Company’s Proxy Statement. The amounts of the bonuses paid each year under the Plan are reported in the
“Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table included in the Company’s Proxy Statement.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40959

Summary Calendar

ELPIDIO DELGADO, JR

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER; M MORRISON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CV-401

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elpidio Delgado, Jr., federal prisoner # 83283-079, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint challenging Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Program

Statement 1351.05 under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Freedom of

Information Act, and the First Amendment. Delgado does not challenge the

district court’s dismissal of his claims arising under the Administrative

Procedures Act and the First Amendment. Because Delgado fails to brief these

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40959

2

issues, they are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County DeputySheriff Abner, 813F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Delgado’s challenge to Program Statement 1351.05 is without merit and

fails to state a claim for relief under the Freedom of Information Act. See Harris

v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2



Certificate 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 Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher W. Wolf, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §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.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/s/ Christopher W. Wolf

---

Christopher W. Wolf

Senior Vice President and

Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

February 12, 2003
The Honorable John Kerry 

Secretary 

United States Department of State 

2201 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary 

May 15.2015 

United States Department ofTranspprtation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 I 

The Honorable Penny Pritzker 

Secretary 

United States Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

~wvr 

CTII-'/~D 

AIRWAYS 

ABU DHABI 

RE: Financial and Other Goyemmental Benefits Provided to American Airlines, Delta 

Air Lines and United Airlines 

Dear Secretaries Kerry, Foxx, and Pritzker, 

As noted during our meetings in March with your staff at the Departments of State. Commerce 

and Transportation, Etihad is preparing a comprehensive response to the allegations made by 

American, Delta, and United. However. as promised during those meetings, we are releasing 

certain parts of our response as they are available. The first of these is a report from The Risk 

Advisory Group entitled "Financial & Other Governmental Benefits Provided to American 

Airlines, Delta Air Lines & United," which was commissioned by Etihad Airways. 

The intention of this report is not to challenge the legality or availability of these benefits to US 

carriers, but simply to highlight the ~act that US carriers have been and continue to benefit from 

highly a favorable legal regime, such as bankruptcy protection and pension guarantees, 

exemptions from certain taxes, and various other forms of subsidies and benefits. These benefits, 

which are generally only available to US carriers, have created a highly distorted market in 

which carriers such as Etihad have to compete. 

901 15th Street N.W., Suite 610, Washington, DC 20005 

Tel:+ 1 202 735 26121 Fax:+ 1 202 735 2620 I Toll Free:+ 1 888 8 ETIHAD 

The National Airline of the Umted Arab Emirates 

ET"IHA.D 

AIRWAYS 

PARTNER 

etihad.co'Tl 
~~vr 

~TIJ-J/~D 

AIRWAYS 

ABU DHABI 

Etihad will release further reports in the coming weeks, which will also form part of our overall 

response. 

Yours sincerely, 

Encl. 

EriHA..D 

AIRWAYS 

PARTNER 

etihad.com
No. 85-1700.

#### First Fidelity Bancorporation et al. *v.*Parell, Commissioner of Banking of the State of New Jersey, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Jennings and Baker *vs.*Ashley.

This was a proceeding on delivery bond, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in November, 1842, before the Hon. John J. Clenden-in, one of the circuit judges. ,The facts of the case were precisely the same, in all respects, as in the case last preceding, except that there was one more defendant. The case was argued by the same counsel.

*By the Court,*

Paschal, J.

The facts of the case are precisely as in the case of *Jennings vs. Ashley and Beebe,*and the same principles upon the merits, are involved.

The decision of the Court in that case was made upon the facts as argued by counsel; and owing to the peculiar manner in which the record was transcribed, the Court overlooked the fact that the declaration was not filed at the term to which the execution was returnable, and the delivery bond forfeited. Upon a nearer examination of dates, we find that the declaration was not, in fact, filed until the fol*135lowing term. Consequently, when the voluntary appearance of the defendants was entered, there was no suit to appear to — no declaration, process, or other thing, to which to hold the defendants. Such appearance did not bind them to answer the declaration filed at a subsequent term. Edwin Y. Baker was, therefore, never properly before the Court; nor, indeed, either of the other defendants, except so far as they resisted the motion for judgment, and filed a bill of exceptions. This they were not bound to do; and, had they remained silent, the plaintiff must have sued out his summons, and proceeded in the ordinary form of an action at law. Edwin Y. Baker never was before the Court. Consequently, the *nunc pro tunc*judgment as to him is the more apparently erroneous.

Judgment reversed, and Jennings and W. R. Baker considered as in Court.
Dennis D. WIGGINS, Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2415

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.64


            SCHEDULE OF PARTIES TO FORM OF 


            EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


            Each of the parties identified in the table below is party to an executive employment agreement with Remington Arms Company, Inc. (the “Company”) substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 10.63 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008. Each party’s employment agreement is substantially the same except for such party’s position,
            hire date, start date and base salaries (which range from $225,000 to $350,000).


             


            	
      Employee Name
	
      Position
	
      Hire Date
	
      Start Date

	
      Marc Hill
	
      Chief Marketing Officer
	
      12/15/08
	
      12/15/08

	
      Paul A. Miller
	
      Executive Chairman
	
      10/31/08
	
      11/1/08

	
      Fredric E. Roth, Jr.
	
      General Counsel
	
      6/16/08
	
      6/16/08
Willard G. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5400

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883720
<NAME> CELOX LABORATORIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-28-1999
<CASH>                                         237,350
<SECURITIES>                                   364,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               709,123
<PP&E>                                         451,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 907,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,092
<OTHER-SE>                                     782,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   907,290
<SALES>                                        149,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,176
<CGS>                                           65,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               296,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (272,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (272,912)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (272,912)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

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 Genesis Bioventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas C. Lane, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Douglas Lane                                     			

Douglas C. Lane |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer &  Principal |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

|   | Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | May 16, 2007 |
|--------|--------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Simon John JUDGE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50533

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Alexander Hernandez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tommy Hai Vu, Esquire, Trial Attorney, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Simon John Judge, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month concurrent - sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for importation of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Judge first contends that the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard to his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Specifically, he argues that the court erred by relying on *United States v. Hurtado,*760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), which he argues was superseded by Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”) to the minor role guideline. Reviewing de novo, *see United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 522 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that any error was harmless. Even if the Amendment and *Hurtado*are in conflict, the court properly applied the Amendment; it' compared Judge to his co-participants in the offense, and considered the factors enumerated in the guideline and the totality of the circumstances; to determine whether Judge *592was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C) (2015). Contrary to Judge’s suggestion, the court did not deny the minor role reduction based on his essential role in the offense, or in reliance on a single fact.

Judge next contends that the court clearly erred in finding that he was not a minor participant in the offense. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the multiple times that Judge crossed the border with marijuana seeds before the offense, we conclude that the court did not clearly err. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 522-23.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Memorandum

To: File

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX

Date: June 8, 2012

Subject: Telephone Conversation with Michele Morris, Navajo Nation

This memorandum summarizes the main points of telephone conversation with Michele Morris,

Director of Policy and Management of the Navajo Nation.

EPA Participants:

• Colleen McKaughan and Anita Lee, Air Division

• Laura Ebbert and Pamela Overman, Tribal Pro grams Office, Communities and

Ecosystems Division

We discussed agenda topics and attendees for our June 13, 2012 consultation meeting with

President Shelly of the Navajo Nation.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6011 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to notify applicants of the completion status of right-of-way applications under section 501 of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6011 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right-Of-Way Applica3 tion Transparency and Accountability Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘ROWATA Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION REGARDING RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 

6 (a) NOTICE.—Not later than 90 days after the Sec7 retary concerned receives an application to grant a right8 of-way, the Secretary concerned shall— 

9 (1) notify the applicant as to whether the appli10 cation is complete; or 

11 (2) notify the applicant that information is 

12 missing and specify any information that is required 

13 to be submitted for the application to be complete. 

14 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

15 (1) RIGHT-OF-WAY.—The term ‘‘right-of-way’’ 

16 means— 

17 (A) a right-of-way issued, granted, or re18 newed under section 501 of the Federal Land 

19 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

20 1761); or 

21 (B) a right-of-way granted under section 

22 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185). 

23 (2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Sec24 retary concerned’’ means— 

25 (A) with respect to public lands, the Sec26 retary of the Interior; and 
3 

•HR 6011 EH

1 (B) with respect to National Forest Sys2 tem lands, the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 11, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6011 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secthe Mineral Leasing Act. and Management Act of 1976 and section 28 of under section 501 of the Federal Land Policy completion status of right-of-way applications retary of Agriculture to notify applicants of the
NO. 12-18-00291-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

MICHAEL L. BIRD, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Michael L. Bird filed this original proceeding to challenge a temporary order in a suit 

affecting the parent child relationship and the denial of his motion to transfer.1 On January 16, 2019, 

this Court conditionally granted Bird’s petition and directed Respondent to vacate her December 15, 

2016, order denying Bird’s motion to transfer and issue an order transferring the case to Bell County. 

By an order signed on January 28, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, 

rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Bird’s petition for writ of mandamus as 

moot.

Opinion delivered January 31, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

 1 Respondent is the Honorable Pam Fletcher, Judge of the 349th District Court in Houston County, Texas. The 

Real Party in Interest is Angelique Ledesma.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 31, 2019

NO. 12-18-00291-CV

MICHAEL L. BIRD,

Relator

V.

HON. PAM FLETCHER,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Michael L. Bird, who is the relator in cause number12-18-00291-CV, and the petitioner in trial 

court cause number 060-050, pending on the docket of the 349th District Court of Houston County, 

Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 23, 2018, and the 

same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not 

issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ 

of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Exhibit 32


Section 1350
      Certifications





STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





The undersigned is the Chief Executive
Officer and Treasurer or Principal Accounting Officer of Lightbridge
Corporation. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Lightbridge Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2009.





The undersigned certifies that such 10-K
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Lightbridge Corporation as of December 31,
2009.





This Certification is executed as ofMarch 16, 2010.





By: /s/ Seth
      GraeName: Seth
    GraeTitle: President, Chief Executive
      Officer and Director(Principal Executive
      Officer)By: /s/ James
      GuerraName: James
      GuerraTitle: Chief Financial
      Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lightbridge Corporation
and will be retained by Lightbridge Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.