alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10u.htm


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 dated as of July 18, 2008 (the "Amendment"), to EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN COMMERCIAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and SUCCESSOR COMPANIES AND JOHN D.REIERSEN, dated as of September 13, 2006 and AMENDMENT NO.1 dated January 25, 2008 (the "Agreement")


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Commercial Mutual Insurance Company (the "Company") and John D. Reiersen (the "Employee") have entered into the Agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the Employee is employed by the Company and upon which the Company compensates the Employee.


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound, hereby agree that, notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary:


 


1. The Employee subject to the provisions of Amendment 1 of the Agreement Sections 2 and 3, shall continue to be employed with the title of President and CEO and serve on the Board of Directors until December 31, 2011.


 


2. The Employee's Salary and benefits for the period 1/01/10 to 12/31/11 shall be the same as detailed in the Agreement for the period 1/01/09 to 12/31/09, except that effective 1/01/10 and 1/01/11, the employee shall receive pay raises of 5% on each of these dates.


 


3. The provisions of the Agreement at Amendment 1, Section 4 are hereby deleted.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Company and Employee have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


COMMERCIAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY


 


 




	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Barry Goldstein	 
	 	 	Barry Goldstein, Chairman of the Board	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
 

	/s/John D. Reiersen	 
	 	 	John D. Reiersen, President and CEO
<PAGE>
                                   Exhibit 23



CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-57664) of Third Wave Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the 1995
Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1997 Nonqualified
Stock Option Plan, 1998 Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1999 Incentive Stock Option
Plan, 1999 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, 2000 Stock Plan and 2000 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated January 29, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Third Wave Technologies, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.





Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 12, 2004                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Amended Annual Report ofSouth Shore Resources Inc.(the"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year endedDecember 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Richard Wachter, Chief Financial 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.
| |   

Dated this 15thday of April, 2008.

RICHARD WACHTERRichard WachterChief Financial Officer

























---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, T. Kendall Hunt,
certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, that to the best of my 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/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|May 9, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20838-20839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10173]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Human Resource Development 
(#1199).
    Date/Time: May 10-11, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Ruta Sevo, Program Director, Human Resource 
Development Division, Room 815, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 292-4676.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.

[[Page 20839]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate formal proposals submitted to the 
Program for Gender Equity in High School, Undergraduate, Teacher and 
Faculty Development, Educational Technologies.
    Reasons for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10173 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ENOCH HENRY ROGERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2442 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County; Marcus J. Ezelle, Judge. Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James D. Brown, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — sexual abuse, first degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### Davis v. The State.

Aureal from Montgomery City Court.

Tried before the Hon. A. Í). Sayre.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellant.

Charles G. Broavn, Attorney-General, for the State.

*657Opinion by

Haralson, J.

*656The indictment in this case Avas for assault with intent to murder, a felony, punishable by imprisonment in *657the penitentiary for not less than two, nor more than twenty years. — Code, § 4346. The verdict was: “We the jury find the defendant guilty.” The sentence of the court was that the defendant perform hard labor for the county for twelve months for the offense and an additional term of 238 days to pay the costs. It is held on this appeal that this was an erroneous sentence. The judgment of the city court is reversed back to the conviction, and the cause remanded that the city court may render the proper *sentence.-*— Herrington *v. State,*87 Ala. 1; *Linnehan v. State,*120 Ala. 293.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Hale, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered April 19, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, the indictment is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

During the early morning hours of March 2, 1983, the victim, Robert Smith, was shot and killed in the Passion Club in Queens. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence at trial established only that the defendant and several others argued with the victim minutes *649before he was shot, and that those same people were still present inside the club immediately after the shooting. No one was able to identify who it was that shot the victim. Although the evidence arguably established that the defendant was standing nearest to the victim’s body only seconds after the shot was heard, there was no evidence that the victim was shot at close range or that the defendant was armed. Upon this record, the inferences which can reasonably be drawn from this evidence are equally as consistent with the defendant’s innocence as with his guilt. Accordingly, the defendant’s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Marin,*65 NY2d 741). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### SQUIRE et al. v. McKENZIE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by Henry N. Squire and another against Alexander C. McKenzie.

John T. Barnard, for appellants.

Ira Leo Bamberger, for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

An order of reference was made to determine the amount due to Herman G. Loew for professional services performed in the collection of the judgment in this action, which was assigned to Anna M. Costello, for whom it was claimed the services were rendered. The referee took testimony under the order, and found and decided that Loew was entitled to the sum of $200, for which he had a lien upon the money in the hands of the receiver in this action. The report has been confirmed, and a man named James K. Spratt has appealed from the order of confirmation. The only connection of Spratt with the proceeding is this: Loew entered into a writ-ten agreement with Spratt, by which he undertook to collect claims upon information given by Spratt, and take business suggested by him for a certain percentage, and Spratt employed him for Costello to collect this judgment. The claim of Spratt and Costello, therefore, is that Loew performed the services in question under that agreement, and is entitled only to $18.75. The referee found that the services of Loew in the collection of this, judgment were not performed under the agreement with Spratt, and we cannot say his conclusion is unsupported by evidence. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anderson O. Wethington, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, J. — attempted rape, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.
----

----

| 1.  | The      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the LP. |
|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 30, 2009                                                                                                             |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                                  |
| /s/      Mark Gatto                                                                                                                   |
| Mark      Gatto                                                                                                                       |
| Co-Chief      Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight BL.P. |
**Exhibit 10.16****Compensation of Named Executive Officers**     The executive officers named in the summary compensation table in the proxy statement forIxia’s 2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Named Executive Officers”) have their basesalaries determined annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the“Compensation Committee”). Such determinations ordinarily take place in the first quarter of eachfiscal year and are effective as of January 1st (i.e., the first day of that fiscal year). TheNamed Executive Officers are all “at will” employees and do not have written or oral employmentagreements with the Company. The Company, upon the approval of the Committee, retains the right tounilaterally decrease or increase such officers’ base salaries at any time during the fiscal year.     The annual base salaries for the Named Executive Officers (effective since January 1, 2006)are as follows:     **Named Executive Officer** **Annual Base Salary**     Errol Ginsberg $363,825 Chief Executive Officer and President         David Anderson  250,000 Senior Vice President, Worldwide Salesand Business Development Operations         Robert W. Bass  237,038 Executive Vice President, Operations         Thomas B. Miller  235,935 Chief Financial Officer         Alan Cuellar-Amrod (resigned June 30, 2006)  232,628 Former Vice President, Marketing         The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to participate in the Company’s incentivecompensation plans, including:     (i) The Company’s bonus plans; provided, however, that David Anderson, SeniorVice President, Worldwide Sales and Business Development Operations, is eligible to receive salescommission in lieu of participation in the Company’s bonus plans;     (ii) The Company’s Amended and Restated 1997 Equity Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 4.1 tothe Company’s Registration Statement Form S-8 (Reg. No. 333-117969) filed with the Commission onAugust 5, 2004); and     (iii) TheCompany’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan (filed asExhibit 10.3 to Amendment No. 1 to the Company’sRegistration Statement on Form S-1 (Reg. No. 333-42678) filed with the Commission on September 5, 2000), as amended by(1) Amendment No. 1 thereto (filed as Exhibit 4.2 to the Company’s Registration Statement Form S-8(Reg. No. 333-107818) filed with the Commission on August 8, 2003), and (2) the SupplementalProvisions thereto (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K (File. No.000-31523) filed with the Commission on April 20, 2006).
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 
 



 
 July 8, 2019 
 Lance
Mitchell 
 CEO, Reynolds Consumer Products 
 Dear Lance: 

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products will be to explore opportunities for the business
that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a successful
transaction. In light of this, we are offering you a special Transaction Success bonus (“Bonus”) that will become payable if a successful IPO is concluded or if there is a sale of the business by June 30, 2020. 

If an IPO transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $1,782,500. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($891,250) will be paid to you 30 days after
the effective date of an IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the effective date of an
IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for
any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 
 If a sales transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be
$3,565,000. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($1,782,500) will be paid to you 30 days after the closing date of a sale, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the
remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the closing date, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all
applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 

Because of the significance of this strategic effort, and given that you are one of a select group of employees to be offered this opportunity, it is of
utmost importance that you keep this offer and all its terms entirely confidential. 
 Thank you for your willingness to assist the team during this
endeavor and for your help in ensuring the success of this very important process for Reynolds Consumer Products. 
 Sincerely, 

 

	
	//s// Steve Estes
	Steve Estes
	Chief HR Officer
	Rank Group
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Patrick G. Blanchard, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 12, 2006       /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard         Patrick G. Blanchard    President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

SHANNON D. HATTON,

Appellant.

No. 80447-2-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM — Shannon Hatton was convicted by a jury of first degree 

unlawful possession of a firearm, violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances 

Act (VUCSA), chapter 69.50 RCW, and physical control while under the 

influence. He challenges the firearm conviction, contending that the mandatory 

impound and inventory search of his vehicle violated article I, section 7 of the 

Washington Constitution. The State concedes that the conviction must be 

vacated based on the Washington Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Villela, 

194 Wn.2d 451, 450 P.3d 170 (2019). In response to the State’s concession, 

Hatton has withdrawn his sole remaining claim of error based on racial 

disproportionality in jury selection. 
No. 80447-2-I/2

2

We accept the State’s concession. We affirm Hatton’s VUCSA and 

physical control convictions. We dismiss the firearm conviction and remand to 

the trial court for resentencing.

FOR THE COURT:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Beach, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), rendered March 22, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.