alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chuki P. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2628

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Asia Payment Systems Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Matt Mecke, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Matt Mecke
Matt Mecke
Chief Executive Officer
April 13, 2004
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------







---
Derrick Lamar SERIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3128

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Vester L. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Clark KELSO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16489

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*394Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 5, 2017

Vester L. Patterson, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.

Jaime G. Touchstone, Futterman Du-pree Dodd Croley Maier LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendanb-Appellee.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Vester L. Patterson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a negligence claim against the receiver of the California prison medical system. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Serra v. Lappin,*600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Patterson’s action because Patterson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a negligence claim. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *Ladd v. County of San Mateo,*12 Cal.4th 913, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, 911 P.2d 496, 498 (1996) (elements of a general negligence claim under California law).

The district court 'did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,*232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”). Specifically, Patterson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and Kelso is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (setting forth FTCA’s administrative exhaustion-requirement); *McNeil v. United States,*508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) (the FTCA bars a claimant from bringing suit in federal court unless the claimant has first exhausted administrative remedies); *Stump v. Sparkman,*435 U.S. 349, 355-56, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (explaining doctrine of judicial immunity); *Mosher v. Saalfeld,*589 F.2d 438, 442 (9th Cir. 1978) (judicial immunity extends to court-appointed receivers).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellee’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

***

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
#### Brett Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph A. LANE, Clerk, Court of Appeal Second District, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 15-55980, 16-55104

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Brett Lee Williams, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Brett Lee Williams, a California state prisoner, *386appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. *See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,*491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (“[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.... As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) because Williams failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that any party perpetrated “fraud on the court.” *Pizzuto v. Ramirez,*783 F.3d 1171, 1175, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and requiring more specific evidence of fraud than plaintiffs “series of allegations and implications”). We reject as unsupported by the record Williams’s contentions that pages were intentionally omitted from his filings or that his objections to the Report and Recommendation were not considered.

We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions regarding judicial notice.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*386ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MANUEL ABREU

*John Serrano,*in support of the petition.

*LeonF. Dalbec, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided September 30, 1997

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 756 (AC 15536), is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT HARRIS, a/k/a Junebug,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CR-95-10)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 29, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jane Charnock, CHARNOCK & CHARNOCK, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A.

Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Harris pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack

cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1995), and received a

sentence of 87 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the

district court erred in finding that he had not accepted responsibility for his offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1994). Finding no error, we affirm the

sentence.

Following his guilty plea, Harris was released on bond. He

subsequently tested positive on three occasions for cocaine use.

His bond was revoked. At sentencing, the district court determined

that Harris's continued criminal conduct was inconsistent with

acceptance of responsibility. The court's factual finding was not

clearly erroneous. See United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 34 (4th

Cir. 1993) (continued criminal conduct may be basis for denial of

adjustment), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 3705 (U.S.

Apr. 25, 1994) (No. 93-8489).

Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the district court is

affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mary Lee GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LWIN, M.D. of the California Department of Corrections, Central California Womens’ Facility; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15142

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017

Mary Lee Gaines, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Mary Lee Gaines appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaines’s deliberate indifference claim because Gaines failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Berber knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Gaines’s safety. *See Foster v. Runnels,*554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the risk .... ”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gaines’s state law claim because it properly determined that Gaines’s federal claim was unfounded. *See Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint, Inc.,*333 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t [is] appropriate for the district court to decline jurisdiction over ... supplemental state claims [when] the federal claim [has] proven to be unfounded.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ronald W. PAUL, Appellant, v. FPL GROUP and Broadspire, Appellees.

No. 1D17-2552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00028-CR

FREDDIE PILAR BUSTOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 372nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1472251D)

April 23, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799268
<NAME>                        MPM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                             1      
<CURRENCY>                            USD         
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                           2,634,570
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                    1,720,630
<ALLOWANCES>                        90,000
<INVENTORY>                        496,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 6,400,996
<PP&E>                             358,642
<DEPRECIATION>                      38,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   9,468,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            6,169,319
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                             2,146
<OTHER-SE>                       1,957,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     9,468,293
<SALES>                         10,056,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                10,056,054
<CGS>                            7,869,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    77,447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 124,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (699,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (699,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                    (435,681)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,135,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.58)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31, 2007, filed
on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
   /s/ Frank C. StipesFrank C. Stipes, Esq.Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer and President
March 16, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly, Asia Payment Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, I 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 Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly Asia Payment Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 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 Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cardtrend International Inc., formerly Asia Payment Systems, Inc.
|   



By: THOMAS CL WONGThomas CL WongChief (Principal) Financial OfficerAugust 23, 2007





















---
Milton WEST, Appellant, v. COMMISSION ON ETHICS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRAT I

WASHINGTON , D C Venic e Jet

Center , LL C Complainant ,
V

. Cit y o f Venice , Florid a Respondent

. FA A Docke t N o

/ NOTIC EO FLA WFIR M CHANG E C c unse l o f recor dfor

Complainan t

Venic e Je t

Center , LL C provide s thi s notic e o f law fir mchange

. Th e ne w fir

mnam e an daddres s ar e a s follows : WL\N D GUERR A KIN GP.L

. 300 0 Bayport

Drive , Suit e 60 0 '. : ^ Tampa , PL33607'" ,

Tel : 813-347-5100 ' Fax:813-347-515 5 PLjas e direc t

al l notices , orders , pleadings , an dothe r document s t o Defendant' s counse l

• • ^

• •'•••'•'•''';;' • ••'•' * w'. I /.'•.* ' • accordingly

. CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I lereb y certif

y tha t I hav e serve datru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s b y overnigh t mai l o n Novembe r

17 , 2009 : Offic e o f the Chie f Counse l Attn : FAv V Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket,/.GC-61 0 Roo m92: 5 Federa l A viatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W

. Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l in d3 copies b

y overnigh t delivery Jonatha n Cros s Manage r Airport s an dEnvironmenta l Law divisio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W

. Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimil e (202 ) 267-576 9 ICop y

• • ;' ( C>'-' <I hereb y further certif y tha t I hav e serve datru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s b y electroni c mai l o n Novembe r 17,2009 : ElizabethHea d Senio r Attorne y Airport s & Environmenta l Law Divisio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Washington , D.C

. 2059 1 Email : Elizabeth.Head@faa.go v I liereb y further

certif y tha t I hav e serve datru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g o n th e followin g persons b y overnigh t mai l an delectroni c mai l o n Novembe r 17 , 2009 : Thoma s R

. Devin e Kaplan Kirsch& Rockwel l LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave

. NW , Ste

. 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Email : tdevine@,kaplankirsch.co m I hereb y further

certif y tha t I hav e serve datru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s b y Unite dState s mai l o n Novembe r 17,2009 : Robert C

. Anderso n Hal l & Anderson , P. A 131 4 Eas t Venic e Avenue , Suit e E* * Venice , Florid a3428 5 

## &ctkU\^ ^ ^ •Xjianluc aMor^J/o , FB N 03499 7 Gm|6rello @ wiandlaw

. co m 5miniqu e Pearlman , FB N 00441 3 5 Dpearlman@wiandlaw.co m WIAN D GUERR A KIN GP.L

. 300 0 Bayport

Drive , Suit e 60 0 Tampa , F L3360 7 Attorney s for

th e Complainant , Venic e Je t Center , LL C
Kadelest M. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0090

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

Kadelest M. Hill, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7615

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elan Christopher Lewis appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Lewis,*No. 3:94-cr-00094-JAG-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2016 & Nov. 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Cephus WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-305

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### John Levy et al., Respondents, *v.*The Great Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued September 28, 1871;

decided January term, 1872.)

Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Louisa Levy, in crossing defendant’s tracks. *Held,*that she was chargeable with contributory negligence, according to the rule laid down in *Gorton*v. *The Erie Railway Com/pamy*(43 R. Y., 660).

*John H. Reynolds*for the appellant.

*Amasa J. Parker*for the respondents.

Leonard and Earl, CC., read for reversal.

All concur.

. Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.
orbc-ex107_401.htm



 

Exhibit 10.7

ORBCOMM Inc.

Summary of Compensation of Non-Employee Directors* and 
Non-Executive Chairman of the Board 
(as of August 1, 2018)


	
1.
	
Annual Retainer Fees 





	
 
	
•
	
Non-Employee Directors*:  $45,000 in cash paid in quarterly installments. 





	
 
	
•
	
Non-Executive Chairman of the Board:  $50,000 in cash paid in quarterly installments. 





	
 
	
•
	
Deferrals:  Directors may elect to defer all or part of the cash payment of retainer fees until such time as specified, with interest on deferred amounts accruing quarterly at 120% of the Federal long-term rate set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury.





	
2.
	
Annual Committee Membership Fees (Non-Employee Directors only*)





	
 
	
•
	
Audit Committee: $6,000 ($20,000 for the Chair).





	
 
	
•
	
Compensation Committee: $5,000 ($12,000 for the Chair).





	
 
	
•
	
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $3,000 ($10,000 for the Chair).





	
 
	
•
	
Fees are paid in quarterly installments in cash.





	
 
	
•
	
Deferrals: Directors may elect to defer all or part of the cash payment of committee fees until such time as specified, with interest on deferred amounts accruing quarterly at 120% of the Federal long-term rate set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury.  





	
3.
	
Annual Awards 





	
 
	
•
	
Non-Employee Directors*/Non-Executive Chairman of the Board:  Effective January 1, 2019, time-based restricted stock units (RSUs) granted on or about January 2 of each year with a value of $100,000 based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on Nasdaq on the date of grant and vesting on the immediately following January 1.  The RSUs will be granted to eligible directors under the Company’s 2016 Long-Term Incentives Plan.




 

 


	
*
	
Other than Mr. Fuchs, who does not receive annual retainer fees, committee membership fees or annual awards of RSUs.




 

AmericasActive:12420931.2



 


	
 
	
•
	
Deferrals: Directors may elect to defer the vesting of all or part of the RSUs to a fixed date that is at least one year after the grant date.





	
4.
	
Non-Executive Chairman of the Board Salary





	
 
	
•
	
Annual base salary of $55,000 (at-will employment)




2

AmericasActive:12420931.2