alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.8  


  
 

    SUMMARY OF 2003 BONUS PROGRAM FOR
  EXECUTIVE AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTS OF
  UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION    
    



        The objectives of the 2003 Bonus Program for Executive and Senior Vice Presidents (the "2003 Bonus Plan") of United States Cellular Corporation ("USM") are:
(i) to provide incentives for the Executive and Senior Vice Presidents of USM to extend their best efforts to achieve superior results in relation to key performance targets, (ii) to
reward USM's Executive and Senior Vice Presidents in relation to their success in meeting and exceeding these performance targets, and (iii) to help USM attract and retain talented leadership
in positions of critical importance to the success of USM. 


        The
2003 Bonus Plan was designed to generate a targeted 2003 bonus equal to 40 to 60% (depending on position) of the base salary of each senior executive officer other than the
President. Under the 2003 Bonus Plan, the size of the target bonus is increased or decreased depending on USM's 2003 achievements with respect to the performance categories. No bonus is paid under
such plan if minimum performance levels are not achieved in these categories. The maximum bonus that could be generated, which would require exceptional performance in all areas, would equal the total
of 80 to 120% of the base salaries of the Company's senior executive officers other than the President. At target performance, the bonus would be equal to 40 to 60% of the salaries of the Company's
senior executive officers other than the President. The performance categories, each of which is weighted 20%, include (i) gross post-pay customer additions;
(ii) consolidated cash flow; (iii) consolidated revenue; (iv) return on capital; and (v) customer defections. 



        After
the maximum bonus based on such performance measures has been determined for each senior executive officer other than the President, the amounts are aggregated in a bonus pool. The
President may then, subject to approval by the Chairman, allocate this pool to the senior executive officers based on an assessment of each officer's individual performance for 2003. The individual
performance multiplier may range from 50% to 150% for each officer, however, the total allocation of bonuses may not exceed the total bonus pool determined using the above performance categories. 









QuickLinks


SUMMARY OF 2003 BONUS PROGRAM FOR EXECUTIVE AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENTS OF UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6066

TITUS LEE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANGELA MASTANDREA-MILLER, Assistant United States Attorney; ADAM 

ULERY, Special Agent; DIANA C. DELUCA, United States Probation Officer,

 Defendants Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cv-00318-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: June 24, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Lee, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Titus Lee appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) 

his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. 

Mastandrea-Miller, No. 3:20-cv-00318-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 126 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 126

To amend Public Law 89-366 to allow for an adjustment in the number of 
    free roaming horses permitted in Cape Lookout National Seashore.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Jones of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend Public Law 89-366 to allow for an adjustment in the number of 
    free roaming horses permitted in Cape Lookout National Seashore.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT IN NUMBER OF FREE ROAMING HORSES PERMITTED IN 
              CAPE LOOKOUT NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--The first subsection (b) of section 5 of Public 
Law 89-366 (16 U.S.C. 459g-4) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``100 free roaming 
        horses'' and inserting ``not less than 110 free roaming horses, 
        with a target population of between 120 and 130 free roaming 
        horses,'';
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
        inserting the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) unless removal is carried out as part of a plan to 
        maintain the viability of the herd; or''; and
            (3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``100'' and inserting 
        ``110''.
    (b) Repeal of Duplicate Subsection.--Section 5 of Public Law 89-366 
is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)'' after ``(a)''; 
        and
            (2) by striking the second subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11734]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 950206041-5041-01; I.D. 050895A]


Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Shallow-Water Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise 
the shallow-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the 
Gulf of Alaska (GOA), except directed fishing for pollock by vessels 
using pelagic trawl gear in those portions of the GOA that remain open 
to directed fishing for pollock. This action is necessary because the 
second seasonal allowance of Pacific halibut prohibited species catch 
(PSC) trawl limit apportioned to the shallow-water species complex in 
the GOA has been caught.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 8, 1995, until 
12 noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is 
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 
672.
    In accordance with Sec. 672.20(f)(3)(i), the shallow-water species 
fishery, which is defined at Sec. 672.20(f)(1)(i)(B)(1), was 
apportioned 100 mt of Pacific halibut PSC for the second season, the 
period April 1, 1995, through 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1995 (60 FR 
8470, February 14, 1995).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with Sec. 672.20(f)(3)(i), that vessels participating in the trawl 
shallow-water species fishery in the GOA have caught the second 
seasonal allowance of Pacific halibut PSC apportioned to that fishery. 
Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for each species and 
species group that comprise the shallow-water species fishery by 
vessels using trawl gear in the GOA, except directed fishing for 
pollock by vessels using pelagic trawl gear in those portions of the 
GOA that remain open to directed fishing for pollock. The species and 
species groups that comprise the shallow-water species fishery are: 
Pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka 
mackerel, and ``other species.''

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-11734 Filed 5-8-95; 5 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Northern District of California

✔

3:17-cv-00939 2/23/2017 Northern District of California

WAYMO LLC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO LLC;

OTTO TRUCKING LLC

8,836,922 9/16/2014 WAYMO LLC

9,368,936 6/14/2016 WAYMO LLC

9,086,273 7/21/2015 WAYMO LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-16-TLS

)

LEONARD C. RILEY )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 18] filed on April 2, 2013. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 18] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c),

the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the

Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on April 22, 2013. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Jeannine DUBEY, et vir, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1180.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

FRANK H. PRICE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:12-CV-857 

)

M. LIGHTFOOT, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Voluntary

Dismissal Without Prejudice (DE 32) filed by the plaintiff, Frank

H. Price, a pro se prisoner, on September 18, 2013, and the Motion

to Stay Discovery (DE 33) filed by the defendant, Masatra

Lightfoot, by counsel, on September 25, 2013. In the Motion to Stay

Discovery, the defendant states that she does not oppose the Motion

for Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Dismiss (DE 32)

is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Motion

to Stay Discovery (DE 33) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

DATED: September 26, 2013 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11744]



      
========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices
[[Page 25688]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Forms Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

May 5, 1995.
    The Department of Agriculture has submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) since 
the last list was published. This list is grouped into new proposals, 
revisions, extension, or reinstatements. Each entry contains the 
following information:
    (1) Agency proposing the information collection; (2) Title of the 
information collection; (3) Form number(s), if applicable; (4) Who will 
be required or asked to report; (5) An estimate of the number of 
responses; (6) An estimate of the total number of hours needed to 
provide the information; (7) Name and telephone number of the agency 
contact person.
    Questions about the items in the listing should be directed to the 
agency person named at the end of each entry. Copies of the proposed 
forms and supporting documents may be obtained from: Department 
Clearance Officer, USDA, OIRM, Room 404-W Admin. Bldg., Washington, DC 
20250, (202) 690-2118.

Revision

<bullet> National Agricultural Statistics Service
Monthly Cold Storage
Business or other for profit; 11,300 responses; 4,475 hours
Larry Gambrell (202) 720-5778

<bullet> Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
7 CFR Part 404, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, Claim For 
Indemnity, Field Inspection And Appraisal Requirements
ASCS-574, ASCS-578, CCC-441, FCI-63, FCI-63-A, FCI-74, FCI-74-A, FCI-
74-B, FCI-74-C, and FCI-19-A(APH)
Individuals or Households; Farms; 14,374,920 responses; 10,140,968 
hours
Jerry Frank (202) 720-1324

New Collection

<bullet> Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Environmental Monitoring Form
APHIS 2060
Individuals or households; Farms; Federal Government; 300 responses; 
150 hours
Larry K. Roberson,
Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11744 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
John Duncan FORDHAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1307.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT A

   

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 978-2 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 2
1

From: David Perlson <davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 3:00 PM

To: Gonzalez, Arturo J.; QE-Waymo

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit; Chatterjee, Neel 

(NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)

Subject: RE: Trial Stipulations

- External Email -

Arturo, we are happy to work together to narrow the issues for trial.  However, it is not clear to us what specifically you

are proposing in your email.  Further, the only potential stipulation you raise seems to be premature because, as you

note, it could be mooted by our motion in limine.  If there are specific stipulations you wish to propose, please feel free

to do so.  But we do not think it makes sense to negotiate a stipulation along the lines you indicate below at this point in

the case.   

David

From: Gonzalez, Arturo J. [mailto:AGonzalez@mofo.com]  

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 7:00 PM

To: QE‐Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit

<BSF EXTERNAL UberWaymoLit@BSFLLP.com>; Chatterjee, Neel (NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)

<NChatterjee@goodwinlaw.com>

Subject: Trial Stipulations

Quinn Team: 

We would like to discuss trial stipulations that would eliminate the need for certain witnesses. For example, 

there is an issue that you have raised in an in limine motion regarding Uber’s search for downloaded 

materials. Obviously, if your motion is granted, the issue with respect to those facts may be moot. However, if 

your motion is denied, we believe we can stipulate to many of those facts. For example, on “x” date, 2 Waymo 

lawyers inspected Uber’s facility located at [address]. And we can stipulate regarding the search terms that 

were used to look for “downloaded documents,” and the inspections of Uber’s devices. Please let us know if 

you would be willing to consider such stipulations. If so, we will put some in writing and send them your way. 

If you have thoughts regarding trial stipulations, let us know. 

Arturo J. González  

Chair, Commercial Litigation and Trial Practice Group

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105 

P: 415.268.7020 | F: 415.276.7020 | C: 415.425.9548 

AGonzalez@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

============================================================================ 

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee 

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 978-2 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 2
Eric Francis SANDEFUR, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9297.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
1

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10356

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Crystal Zuniga, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-357-1

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Crystal Zuniga pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug-involved 

premises, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). Following a contested 

sentencing hearing, the court sentenced herto, inter alia, a within-Sentencing 

Guidelines term of 121-months’ imprisonment. Zuniga challenges the 

court’s application of the two-level sentencing enhancement under 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10356 Document: 00515665187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
2

Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises. Relying on United 

States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 305–06 (5th Cir. 2002), she contends imposing 

the enhancement constituted impermissible double-counting, asserting the 

act of maintaining a drug premises is already factored into the base offense 

level for violating 18 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). 

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, the district 

court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating 

the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 

(2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to 

an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 

564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in 

district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual 

findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 

F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

A district court’s imposing the Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(12) maintaininga-drug-premises enhancement is a factual finding reviewed for clear error, 

United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2017); but,

deciding whether the imposition of the maintaining-a-drug-premises 

enhancement constitutes impermissible double counting is an application of 

the Guidelines reviewed de novo, see United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 736, 737 

(5th Cir. 1998).

“Double counting is prohibited only if the particular guidelines at 

issue specifically forbid it.” United States v. Jimenez-Elvirez, 862 F.3d 527, 

541 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Neither 

Guideline § 2D1.1 nor § 2D1.8 expressly prohibits double counting. See 

United States v. Gilford, 782 F. App’x 359, 360 (5th Cir. 2019). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10356 Document: 00515665187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020