alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PNK EX 10.30 12.31.2011 (A)






Exhibit 10.30
Summary of Director Compensation
Director Fees 
   
The compensation of the Company's non-employee directors is paid in the form of an annual retainer, meeting and chair fees and stock-based awards. The fees that each non-employee director (other than the Chairman of the Board) or committee chair, received for his service during 2011 are the following:   
		
	•
	An annual retainer of $60,000; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee; 


		
	•
	An additional $20,000 retainer for the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee as of May 24, 2011; prior to that date the Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee received a $10,000 retainer; 


		
	•
	An additional $7,500 retainer for the Chair of the Risk Management Committee prior to May 24, 2011.  On May 24, 2011, the Risk Management Committee was dissolved by the Board of Directors; 


		
	•
	An attendance fee of $1,500 for each regularly scheduled Board or committee meeting, other than meetings of the Audit Committee which had a meeting fee of $2,000 per meeting and the Advisory Committee (which was formed in January 2011 and disbanded in May 2011) which had a fee of $2,000 per meeting or per day of service; and 


		
	•
	An attendance fee of $500 for each telephonic special meeting of the Board of Directors.




Director Fees Paid to the Chairman of the Board


The Chairman of the Board receives an annual retainer of $185,000.  The annual retainer paid to the Chairman of the Board was in lieu of the fees described above except that the Chairman of the Board receives fees for attending meetings of the Compliance Committee (which are $1,500 per meeting).  In addition, the Chairman of the Board served on the Advisory Committee and received $2,000 per meeting or per day of service.  
Equity Grants 
 
In 2011, Pinnacle granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 10,000 options, which were granted on the date of the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The exercise price for each option was the closing price of Pinnacle Common Stock on the date of grant. All of the options vested immediately upon the date of grant.  In addition, Pinnacle granted to each non-employee director who was then serving 6,000 restricted stock units, which were granted and vested on the date of the 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
#### Aaron Altmayer, Resp’t, *v.*The Metropolitan Elevated R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed May 4, 1891.)*

Appeal—Judgment—Omission of findings.

An omission of the trial judge to include in his decision certain findings and conclusions found by him upon request is not ground for reversal in the absence of a motion to correct such omission.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered on findings and conclusions made at special term.

*Julien T. Davies*and *I. C. Thomson,*for app’lts; *Charles Gibson Bennett,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

It is objected as a sufficient cause for reversal that certain findings and conclusions of law found at the request -of the defendants, were omitted from the decision made by the judge. In such a condition of the case, there is no subject matter of an appeal. There is no action of the court, which may be reviewed. If the omission were irregular, the defendants might have made a motion for the correction of the omission and they would have a right to appeal from a denial of the motion. In the absence of such a motion and order the omission appears to be without objection on the part of the defendants and that *531evinces a consent that the case proceed and appeal he heard on the decision as made.

The other objections have been decided unfavorably to the defendants by other cases.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and McAdam, J., concur.
elgo_ex1021.htm


Exhibit 10.21




 







 







May 14, 2012







Victor Bronshtein, Ph.D.


Universal Stabilization Technologies, Inc.


4050 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Suite L


San Diego, CA 92121


Subject: Extension to LOI dated January 7, 2011


Dear Victor:







 The following is quoted from the executed LOI:








	
·  

	
No later than May 15, 2011, the Licensee and the Licensor will sign and begin executing a mutually agreeable one-year Pilot Development Project.








	
·  

	
Starting on the earlier of (i) May 15, 2011, or (ii) the first day after signing the Pilot Development Project, the Licensee will be obligated to pay the Licensor or at least CA$8333.33 per month for the work performed by Licensor under the Pilot Development Project. The Licensee and the Licensor will negotiate in good faith the goals, objectives and work product of the Pilot Development Project and the actual amount of the such monthly payment, which may be in excess of CA$8,333.33, depending on the scope of the work requested by Licensee.








	
·  

	
The Option Period for the exclusive option to enter into the License Agreement on the License Terms described below will expire on the earlier of (i) May 15, 2012 or (ii) the date the Licensee ceases to make monthly payments to the Licensor for the Pilot Development Project.












For good and valuable consideration the parties agree that the terms of this LOI is now extended to August 15, 2012. Monthly payments during the extension period will continue at the same rate. All other terms and conditions remain the same.







 


 



	/s/ Victor Bronshtein, PhD                                      	 	 /s/ Bob Hoerr                                      
	 	 	 
	Victor Bronshtein, PhD	 	Bob Hoerr
	President and Chief Scientific Officer 	 	President & CEO
	Universal Stabilization Technologies, Inc. 	 	Enterologics, Inc.
#### Bobby TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAREMONT AT WALDEN LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35617

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Bobby Tucker, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Joshua D. Brittingham, Peterson Russell Kelly, PLLC, Bellevue, WA, Sara Kate O’Connor-Kriss, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Erica R. Franklin, K & L Gates LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

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 **

Bobby Tucker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims related to the denial of housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

In Tucker’s opening brief, Tucker failed to address any of the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Aco*sta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). However, because the district court lacked an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims against defendants Chan and the Seattle Office of Civil Rights, dismissal as to these defendants should have been without prejudice. *See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc.,*377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Bjecause the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the claims should have been dismissed without prejudice.”). We vacate the judgment in part and remand for the district court to dismiss the state law claims against these defendants without prejudice.

*432The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43


                       AMENDMENT TO CO-MARKETING AGREEMENT

         This Amendment is made this 31st day of March, 2000, between
priceline.com, Incorporated ("priceline"), with offices at 800 Connecticut
Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06854, and Net2Phone, Inc. ("Net2Phone") with
offices at 171 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.

         WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Co-Marketing Agreement dated
November 4, 1999 (the "Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties now desire to memorialize their mutual
understanding to amend the Agreement and MOU as set forth herein.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

                           1. Section 1.2 of the Agreement is amended to provide
                  that [****] (collectively the "Fee") during priceline's fiscal
                  fourth quarter ended December 31, 1999.

                           2. The fee has been paid in full to [****].

         In all other respects he terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


PRICELINE.COM INCORPORATED                      NET2PHONE, INC.

By: /s/ Robert Mylod                            By: /s/ Ilan Slasky
Name: Robert Mylod                              Name: Ilan Slasky
Title: Senior Vice President-Finance            Title: Chief Financial Officer
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Juan GONZALEZ, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-0719

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 14, 2017

ORDERED that the stipulation for dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John Herbert WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 171, Docket 30290.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 1966.

Decided Nov. 21, 1966.

*843Jon 0. Newman, U. S. Atty., Robert D. Glass, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Connecticut, New Haven, Conn., for appellee.

Herbert S. Siegal, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Herbert Wilson appeals from his conviction by a jury in the District of Connecticut for armed robbery of the General Bank & Trust Company, Whalley Avenue Branch, in New Haven, and sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). He alleges that the government concealed a promise to his accomplice, John Claiborne, who testified at trial, that he would receive consideration for such testimony, and that this concealment violated due process because Claiborne unequivocally testified that no promise had been made, citing Napue v. State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). He asks us to infer that such a promise must have been made. However, there was no evidence to support the allegations that a promise was made and that it was concealed; nor was there any reason why the court should have drawn any such inferences from all the circumstances. On the other hand, Claiborne specifically testified that no promise was made. There was no reason to believe that Claiborne testified falsely. On the contrary, there was eye-witness evidence corroborating Claiborne and identifying Wilson as one of the men who robbed the bank at gun point.

Wilson also claims error in being tried in Bridgeport after Iiis arraignment in New Haven, without an order of transfer under Rule 19, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Wilson did not object to his trial in Bridgeport and complains of it for the first time on this appeal. As the District of Connecticut is not divided into divisions, no order of transfer was required.

Judgment affirmed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00174**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 00174\00174_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 00174\00174_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00174\00174_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00174\00174_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00174\00174_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00174\00174_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00174\Certification Statement Plant ID 00174.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-Cane Run A5-2 - Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-CR - Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-CR - D-1 Wastewater Treatment Block Diagram - 1011r5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-CR - D-2 Wastewater Treatment Block Diagram - 1011r5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-CR - WB-1 Water Balance Block Diagram - 1011r5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00174\Supplemental Documents\00174_LGE-CR - WB-2 Water Balance Block Diagram - 1011r5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00174\00174_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00174\00174_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
SPAR GROUP, INC.

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended March 31, 2005 (this "report"),  of SPAR Group,  Inc. (the  "registrant"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

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 the registrant.



                                /s/ Robert G. Brown
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Robert G. Brown
                                Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

                                May 18, 2005

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SPAR GROUP,  INC.  AND WILL BE  RETAINED  BY SPAR GROUP,  INC.,  AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.





                                      Ex-3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8234

RICHARD JOSEPH RAMSEY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:08-hc-02088-D) 

Submitted: March 19, 2009 Decided: April 13, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Richard Joseph Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Richard Joseph Ramsey appeals the district court’s 

order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Ramsey v. Secretary of the Army, No. 5:08-hc-02088-D (E.D.N.C. 

Sept. 23, 2008). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Daniel LOPEZ-LINARES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41047 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Daniel Lopez-Linares, Pro Se

*252Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Daniel Lopez-Linares 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Linares has not filed a response. 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. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm, 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.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00226-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Terri Sanders

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2015-0255M-CR)

December 14, 2017

Opinion by Justice Meier

Dissent by Justice FitzGerald

(p)

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.

It is further ordered that Appellant The State of Texas shall pay all costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARSEN VARDANYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74953

Agency No. A079-604-957

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

Arsen Vardanyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

FILED

OCT 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74953

a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We

deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vardanyan’s motion to

reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s

September 2, 2004, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must

generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and Vardanyan failed to

establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> NCS HEALTHCARE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          24,014
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,505
<INVENTORY>                                     50,609
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               285,669
<PP&E>                                          91,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 705,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,456
<BONDS>                                        315,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                     307,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   705,798
<SALES>                                        535,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,487
<CGS>                                          398,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  398,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,712
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
        

</TABLE>