alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.80




Letter agreement effective January 1, 2011 between Steve Berkowitz and Move, Inc. regarding paid time off




MOVE 910 East Hamilton Ave., 6th Floor 
Campbell, CA 95008




November 17, 2010




Dear Steve,




Effective January 1, 2011, you and other senior executives reporting directly to the you (the “Leadership Team”) will no longer be subject to, or accrue or accumulate paid time off under the vacation, floating holiday and/or paid sick leave policies set forth in the Move Inc. Employee Handbook or in your offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




Rather, members of the Leadership Team will be permitted to take paid time off for vacation and personal matters, subject to business needs, with your approval. The primary limitations on permitting the taking of vacation or time off for personal matters will be those dictated by your job responsibilities. Accordingly, there will be no prescribed limits on the amount of vacation or personal time, if any, that you may request or be permitted to take in a given year notwithstanding any reference thereto in any offer letter or any other documentation with the Company.




In addition, paid time off for occasional, short illnesses will be permitted on an as-needed basis, subject to medical verification if requested. Leadership Team members who qualify for and are granted a leave of absence under Move Inc.’s Disability Leave of Absence or Family and Medical Leave of Absence policies will be paid for up to a maximum of ninety (90) days of any such leave taken in any twelve (12)-month rolling period, less any income received from any income replacement benefits or insurance provided pursuant to any applicable law or Company-sponsored insurance or benefit program.




Members of the Leadership Team will retain all vacation accrued on or before December 31, 2010. Paid time off taken on or after January 1, 2011 will reduce any such accrued vacation balance. If upon separation from employment, a Leadership Team member has a balance of unused vacation, he or she will be paid out in accordance with the Company’s policies and practices and applicable law.




Please indicate you acceptance of these terms by signing below and returning this letter to me.




Very truly yours,




/s/ Jim Caulfield




Jim Caulfield 
EVP and General Counsel




cc

Carol Brummer, VP, Human ResourcesName
/s/ Steve Berkowitz

Date
11/17/10Steve Berkowitz


---
exhibi10-4.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 










	  	  	  
	
Notice of Grant of

	  	
LSI CORPORATION


	
Stock Option

	  	
ID: 94-2712976


	
Under the

	  	
1621 BARBER LANE


	
LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan

	  	
MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035







 










	  	  	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	
Award Number:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Grant Date:

	  
	
Address

	  	
Number of Shares:

	  
	  	  	
Exercise Price:

	  
	  	  	
Expiration Date:

	  





 









 


On the grant date shown above, LSI Corporation granted you a nonqualified stock option covering the number of shares shown above under the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. When exercisable, the option will allow you to purchase shares of LSI’s common stock for a price per share equal to the exercise price shown above. Your right to exercise this Option will terminate on the expiration date shown above or earlier if provided in the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement or in the plan.


 


 


Your option will become exercisable with respect to the number of shares and at the time or times indicated below, but only if [any applicable performance requirements indicated below have been met and] you have not incurred a Termination of Service prior to the applicable time. 


 



	  	  	  	  	  
	
Shares

	  	
Vesting Date

	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  





 









 


By your signature below, you agree that this award is governed by this Notice of Grant, the attached Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement and the LSI Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive Plan. You acknowledge that you have received, read and understand this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement and the plan. You agree to accept as binding all decisions or interpretations of the Board of Directors of LSI or its delegate regarding any questions relating to this Notice of Grant, the attached agreement or the plan. 


 










	  	  	  
	
______________________________________________

	  	  
	
GRANTEE NAME

	  	  
	
Date:
*

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2891

___________

Anthony Nelson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Ricky McCarrell, Sgt., Varner Super * District Court for the Eastern

Max, ADC; T. Brown, Grievance * District of Arkansas.

Officer, Varner Super Max, ADC; *

R. Toney, Warden, Varner Super Max, * [UNPUBLISHED]

ADC; Ray Hobbs, Chief Deputy *

Director, Varner Super Max, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2001

Filed: November 2, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Anthony Nelson appeals the district court's*

 dismissal without

prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against four Arkansas Department of
-2-

Corrections employees for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court's dismissal was proper.

Although Nelson's supporting documents show he had exhausted administrative

remedies with defendant Ricky McCarrell at the time of the district court's ruling,

Nelson fails to show he had exhausted them with the remaining defendants. See

Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Nelson's pending motion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 10.30**

 

**Second Amendment**

**Of The**

**eCollege.com 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan**

 

**WHEREAS,**eCollege.com,a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”) maintains the eCollege.com 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”); and

 

**WHEREAS,**underArticle X of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”)is authorized to amend the Plan, and the Board now considers it desirable toamend the Plan;

 

1.                                       **NOW, THEREFORE,**pursuant to the power reserved to the Boardby Article X of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to theundersigned officer by resolution of the Board, the Plan is hereby amended bydeleting the phrase “one million (1,000,000)” in Section III.A of the Planand replacing it with the phrase “one million, one hundred sixty seven thousand(1,167,000).”

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its dulyauthorized officer this 22nd day of March, 2005.

 

 
|   | **eCollege.com** |
|--------|------------------|
|   |             |
|   | By:              | /s/  Oakleigh Thorne |   |
|   | Its:             | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.2

 

COMMONWEALTH REIT

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of CommonWealth REIT (the “Company”) for services as trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $35,000, plus a fee of $750 for each meeting attended. Up to two $750 fees are payable if a board meeting and one or more board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.
#### DONG YU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73921

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 2, 2017

Richard Lucero, Law Office of Richard Lucero, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

John Frederick Stanton, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dong Yu’s motion to submit this case on the previously filed opening brief (Docket Entry No. 28) is granted.

Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in the record regarding Yu’s experiences while reporting weekly to police following his release, when police first visited Yu’s wife after his *402departure from China, and when Wang was released from detention. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). We reject Yu’s contention that the IJ mischaracterized his testimony. Yu’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. *See Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Yu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and Yu does not point to any evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. *See Shrestha,*590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Otto Churchler, Respondent, *v.*Fur Merchants Cold Storage Co., Inc., Appellant.

Argued March 8, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*728
      *John Schulman*and *Harold Epstein*for appellant.

*Irving Greenberg, James D. C. Murray*and *Herbert J. Roeder*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                          SEPTEMBER 30,             SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                      ----------------------    ----------------------
                                                          1997         1996         1997         1996
                                                      -------------   ------    -------------   ------
                                                      (AS RESTATED,             (AS RESTATED,
                                                       SEE NOTE 3)               SEE NOTE 3)
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>       <C>             <C>
NET INCOME (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK......     $ (399)      $1,064       $ (754)      $1,995
                                                         ======       ======       ======       ======
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding....................................      6,433        4,570        6,426        4,566
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants
     after application of treasury stock method.....                     262          266
                                                         ------       ------       ------       ------
  Number of shares used to compute income (loss) per
     share..........................................      6,433        4,832        6,426        4,832
                                                         ======       ======       ======       ======
Net Income (loss) per share.........................     $(0.06)      $ 0.22       $(0.12)      $ 0.41
                                                         ======       ======       ======       ======
</TABLE>
 
                                       14
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Charles GARREANS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4124

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Filed: June 20, 2017

Richard E. Rothrock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Council Bluffs, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Charles Garreans, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM,

Michael Charles Garreans directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Garreans’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.

Counsel’s argument fails. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable); United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court varied downward from Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that it abused its discretion in not varying downward further still).

Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the amended judgment incorrectly cites “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B)” (prohibiting sale of, or *288possession with intent to sell, child pornography) as the offense of conviction, and thus we modify the judgment to substitute “18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)” for “18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B).” See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify any judgment brought before it for review).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment, as modified.

1

. The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
ex10-1_051412.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.1







[Letterhead of BCB Community Bank]







May 10, 2012







Donald Mindiak, CEO/President


BCB Community Bank


104-110 Avenue C


Bayonne, NJ 07002








	
  

	
RE:

	
BCB COMMUNITY BANK/DONALD







MINDIAK/EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







Dear Donald:







Pursuant to the vote of the Board of Directors ("Board") of BCB Community Bank ("BCB") at last night's Board meeting, please be advised that the Board, pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement between BCB Community Bank and Donald Mindiak, dated as of July 6, 2010 ("Agreement"), has elected not to extend the term of the Agreement, and hereby gives you written notice of its non-renewal of the Agreement.







Thank you.








	  	
Very truly yours,


	  	  
	  	
/s/ John J. Brogan, Esq.


	  	  
	  	
JOHN J. BROGAN, ESQ.


	  	
GENERAL COUNSEL


	  	
BCB COMMUNITY BANK

















INTER-OFFICE DELIVERY


JBrogan/server/Executive Agreements.Letter to Donald Mindiak.5.10.12
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.3
















CONSENT OF EUGENE PURITCH







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the “Technical Study”) concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading “Item III – Description of the Business – Coulon Property – 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Eugene Puritch


	Name:  Eugene Puritch, P.Eng.



















May 14, 2012
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Tammy L. Cameron, Interim Principal Accounting and Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | Date:  November 2, 2010 |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | /s/  Tammy L. Cameron        |
|   | Tammy  L. Cameron            |
|   | Vice  President, Finance     |

 

----
#### Sullivan Savings Institution v. Copeland et al.

1. Usury: who mat plead: grantee of mortgagor. The grantee of a mortgagor who assumes the payment of the'mortgage cannot plead usury as a defense to the mortgage. (See cases cited in opinion.)

2. Practice on Appeal: amended abstract not denied. An amendment to appellant’s abstract filed by appellee, and not denied, is deemed to be true.

3. Practice: plea filed after submission without leave. An answer which presents new issues, and which is filed after the submission of the cause without leave of the court, is properly stricken from the files.

*Appeal from Fremont Circuit Court.*

Saturday, March 5.

Action in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. There was a a decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

*A. B. Brewer*and *Qeo. E.*Draper, for appellants.

*/State <& Day*and *J. M. Hammond,*for appellee.

*68Beck, J.

1. usury : who may plead : grantee of mortgagor. I. The action, was originally brought against Oopeland, the mortgagor, and Brewer, to whom he had sold and conveyed the land. The defendants united hi an answer, setting up as a defense usury in note anq mortgage. When the cause was called forbearing, it was dismissed as to defendant'Oopeland, the mortgagor. Thereafter the answer in the case was in fact the answer of Brewer alone, as there was no other defendant in the case; and the defense of usury was therefore pleaded by him alone, the mortgagor being out of the case. It is the settled rule recognized by this court that the debtor can alone plead the defense of usury to an action on a contract. The grantee of a mortgagor, who assumes the payment of the mortgage, cannot set up the defense of usury. See *Miller v.*Clarke, 37 Iowa, 325 ; *National Life Ins. Co. v.*Olmsted, 52 Iowa, 354 ; *Burlington Mut. Loan Ass'n v. Heidar,*55 Iowa, 424, and cases cited therein. Brewer, therefore, could not avail himself of the defense of usury.

2. practice on appeal : amended abstract not denied. II. Counsel complain of the refusal of the court below to sustain a motion made by defendants for a decree on the pleadings. But the amended abstract, which is not denied, shows that no such motion was , made.

3. practice : plea filed after submission without leave. III. Complaint is also made of the ruliug of the court in striking out an answer filed by Brewer, setting up that he and Oopeland had agreed at the time of the conveyance of the land that Brewer should have the right and authority to set up the defense of usury to proceedings to enforce the mortgage. We need not determine whether this agreement would confer upon Brewer the right to plead the usury in this action, for the reason that the record, as disclosed by the amended abstract, shows that the answer, which presents new issues, was filed after the cause was fully submitted, and without leave of the court. This answer was rightly stricken from the files.

These views dispose of all questions in the case. The decree of the circuit court is Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 29, 2016

s0922

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2016

152385 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152385

COA: 326911

Kent CC: 08-007472-FC

SPENCER LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Leopold Edelmuth, Deceased. Stern Brothers, Appellant; Sidney F. Katz, Respondent.

Argued January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*571
      *Bernard I. Kamen*and *Sol S. Ostertag*for appellant.

*Alexander S. Levine, S. F. Katz*and *J. F. Katz*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.