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



Exhibit 10.27





FORMULA FOR DETERMINING 2019 TARGET PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT ("PSU")
AND RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT ("RSU") AWARDS TO BE ISSUED TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The target number of PSUs and RSUs to be issued to each Named Executive Officer listed below for 2019 will be determined in accordance with the following formula:


	
					
	2019 Target Number PSU Awards
	=
	Base Salary 
as of 1/1/19
	x Long‐Term Incentive Target listed below
	x 70%

	Thirty-trading day average closing price of Ameren Corporation Common Stock on The New York Stock Exchange prior to the date of grant






	
					
	2019 Target Number RSU Awards
	=
	Base Salary 
as of 1/1/19
	x Long‐Term Incentive Target listed below
	x 30%

	Thirty-trading day average closing price of Ameren Corporation Common Stock on The New York Stock Exchange prior to the date of grant






	
		
	NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER
	LONG-TERM INCENTIVE 
TARGET AS PERCENT OF BASE SALARY

	Baxter
	400%

	Lyons
	195%

	Nelson
	160%

	Moehn
	180%

	Mark
	170%

	Diya
	155%

	Amirthalingam
	100%
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA NONQUALIFIED STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 

The Philips North America Nonqualified Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated as of April 1, 2017, is hereby
amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Effective as of January 1, 2019, Section 2.15 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as
follows: 


 “Full-Time Employee”: Any employee of an Employer who is regularly scheduled to work a
minimum of thirty (30) hours per week and at least 1,500 hours per calendar year and is not designated as a student employee by the Employer. The employment of a Full-Time Employee is referred to herein as “Full-Time Employment.” (See
Appendix A for applicable definition for Philips Canada employees.) 
  

	 	2.	 Effective as of January 1, 2019, Section 4.5 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as
follows: 


  

	 	4.5	 Sale of Shares. A Participant may sell any Common Shares in the Plan at any time without restriction,
other than as may be restricted by insider trading rules. Effective as of January 1, 2019, a Participant who terminates employment has one hundred eighty (180) days from his termination of employment or Retirement to sell or transfer the
Common Shares in the Participant’s Share Account. If no action is taken by such a Participant within such time period, the Administrator will automatically sell any Common Shares in the Share Account on the Participant’s behalf as soon as
administratively possible after the end of the 180-day period. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Participants who experienced a termination of employment or Retirement prior to January 1, 2019, and are not
listed as deceased in the Administrator’s systems shall have a one-time window beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending on April 1, 2019, to sell or transfer the Common Shares in their Share
Accounts, at the end of the which any remaining Common Shares in their Share Accounts will be sold by the Administrator. (The changes to this Section 4.5 effective as of January 1, 2019, shall not apply for Philips Canada employees until
specifically adopted for Philips Canada employees by the Committee.) 



  
 1 














							
		 		 	PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC
			
	Date: December ____, 2018	 		 	 
		 		 	By: 	 	Joseph Innamorati
		 		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President


  
 2
Blueprint





 







Exhibit 10.1


 



EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered
into on February 21, 2019 by and between SharpSpring, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”); and Richard Carlson
(“Employee”).


 



1. 

This Agreement
amends that certain Employee Agreement dated September 13, 2015 made and entered into by
the parties hereto, as amended from time to time (the
“Employee
Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same
meaning as used in the Employee Agreement, unless otherwise
noted.






 



2. 

Paragraph 4.1 of
Article Four – Compensation of Employee is deleted and
replaced with the following:






 


4.1. Base
Compensation. For all
services rendered by Employee under this Employee Agreement, the
Company agrees to pay Employee the rate of $340,000 per year (the
“base salary”), which shall be payable to Employee not
less frequently than bi-monthly, or as is consistent with the
Company’s practice for its other
employees.


 



3. 

The section titled
“Other Compensation - Bonus” of Appendix B
of the Employee Agreement is deleted and replaced with the
following:






 



I.            

Quarterly Bonus
Compensation:






 


Employee shall be
eligible for bonus compensation that will be paid on a quarterly
basis (the “Quarterly Bonus”) that will be earned and
payable as follows:


 


The
annual bonus target amount is $119,000 (the Quarterly Bonus target
amount is $29,750), and will be based on the Company achieving
specified revenue and EBITDA performance targets as set by the
Board of Directors.


 


The
Quarterly Bonus is earned at the close of the applicable quarter
and is intended to be paid shortly after the Company reports its
financials publicly each quarter.


 


If
Employee’s employment is terminated for any reason, Employee
shall be paid (a) the full Quarterly Bonus earned, as determined
solely by the Company’s Board of Directors, for the most
recently completed quarter and if Employee’s employment is
terminated by the Company or by mutual agreement, Employee shall be
paid (b) a pro-rated Quarterly Bonus, as determined solely by the
Company’s Board of Directors, for the calendar quarter in
which termination occurs.


 



4. 

The following shall
be added to Appendix B of
the Employment Agreement:






 


Other
Compensation shall also include other compensation to be determined
by the Board of Directors from time to time.


 



5. 

All other
provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and
effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the terms and
spirit of this Agreement.






 


Signature
Page Attached


 




 








 






 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement
on the date first written above.

 


 


	

 

	


SHARPSPRING, INC.    


	

 

	

 

	

 


	

____________________________

	

By:

	

_____________________


	

(Witness
signature)

	
 

	

Bradley Stanczak, CFO


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	

EMPLOYEE


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	

________________________

	
 

	

_____________________


	

(Witness
signature)

	
 

	

Richard
Carlson
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Genetic Architecture of Mental Disorders in Ancestrally Diverse Populations (U01).                    

*Date:*                         March 10, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         David W. Miller, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-9734,                         *millerda@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 7, 2022. 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-02904 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EX PARTE Charles S. WHITE

CR-16-0401

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1



June 19, 2001

Mr. Michael Parides
Chief Executive Officer
Gadzoox Networks, Inc.
5850 Hellyer Avenue
San Jose, California   95138

Re: Form 10-K Report for the year ended March 31, 2001

Dear Mr Parides:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of April 1, 2000, the Company changed its accounting method for recognizing
revenue, net of appropriate reserves for sales returns when product is shipped
to distributors, to recognizing revenue when the product is delivered by the
distributor to the end-users. According to the management of the Company, this
change was made as it better recognizes the substance of demand for its products
due to changes in the market place during fiscal year 2001, and will accordingly
better focus the Company on, and allow investors to better understand end-user
demand trends for its products

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are in the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

 Very truly yours,



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter
ended April 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          June 21, 2005          /s/ Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Stephen E. Pomeroy
                                 Chief Executive Officer and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### David Kenneth FOWLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY, substituted for State of North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.

No. 17-6694

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

David Kenneth Fowler, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Kenneth Fowler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fowler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con*179tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of 10-K of Maydao Corporation, (the “Company”)
on 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul Roszel President, and Chief
Executive Officer 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 results of operations of the
      Company.








March
      15, 2010
            /s/
      Paul RoszelPaul
      RoszelPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2
 ACCIDENT PREVENTION PLUS, INC.
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Jennifer Swanson, Chief
Financial Officer ("principal executive officer") of Accident Prevention Plus,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003
of the Registrant (the "Report"):
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)[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 Registrant.

Dated: March 18, 2004                         by: /s/ Jennifer Swanson
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Jennifer Swanson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Tecoy Marquis CAMPBELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
Joseph E. VOLMAR, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Bertilia VOLMAR, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2772

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.2



Performance Guarantee Confirmation
Reference is made to a Performance Guarantee dated as of December 16, 2014 made by the undersigned in favour of the Purchaser (the “Performance Guarantee”).  The undersigned  acknowledges and confirms that the performance guarantee remains in full force and effect notwithstanding the entering into of this fourth amendment.   
Dated this 15th day of February, 2019.


	
				
	 
	 
	WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION

	By:
	/s/Edward J. Wehmer

	 
	Name:   Edward J. Wehmer

	 
	Title:   President & CEO

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/Kathleen M. Boege

	 
	Name:   Kathleen M. Boege

	 
	Title:   EVP, General Counsel, & Corporate Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997     
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997  
<CASH>                                         19,193
<SECURITIES>                                   0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    460,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,662,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (586,031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,637,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          906,154
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,665
<OTHER-SE>                                     727,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,637,312
<SALES>                                        161,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,445
<CGS>                                          17,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (104,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (104,395)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (104,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (104,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)
        



</TABLE>
#### IN RE: David Lee SMITH, Petitioner.

No. 16-2379

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to issue a summons to federal government officials and directing them to reduce Smith’s state sentence to time served. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, *Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty.,*411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, *Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*