alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7
 AIRGAS, INC.
EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN
 Purpose of the Plan
   Eligibility
  Target Awards
  Performance Measurement
  
    
    Earnings per share (EPS)
    
    Return on capital (ROC)
    
    Return on average capital employed (RACE)
    
    Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)
    
    Sales
    
    Return on equity (ROE)
    
    After tax cash flow (ATCF)
    
    Free cash flow (FCF)
    
    Operating expense as a percentage of sales
    
    Gross profit
    
    Days purchases outstanding (DPO)
    
    Operating income (OI)
    
    Days sales outstanding (DSO)




---



##### 




    
    Working capital
   Funding
  Executive Bonus Plan Payment
  Administration of the Plan
  Partial Year Eligibility
  
    
    New hiresNewly hired Participants will immediately be eligible for the Plan.
  
    
    Transfers




---



##### 




    
    Promotions
  
    
    Terminations
   
    
    Leave of absence
   Tax Considerations and Withholding
  Bankruptcy
  Future Employment
152 So. *466*

#### PERSONAL FINANCE CO. OF COLUMBUS, GA., v. Enzie E. GIBSON et al.

5 Div. 169.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 25, 1934.

W. J. Bird and J. B. Hicks, both of Phenix City, for petitioners.

W. H. Young, Jr., and Jos. O. McGehee, both of Columbus, Ga., Roy L. Smith, of Phenix City, and Denson & Denson, of Opelika, for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

Petition of Bnzie B. Gibson and O. C. Gibson for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Personal Finance Co. of Columbus, Ga., v. Gibson et al., 152 So. 462.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

BROWN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., dissent.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Eleazor JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-5036.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 9, 2013.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. WatfordMcKinney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Eleazor Jackson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Jackson contends that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the audio portion of a recording of his post-arrest interview with police. Jackson’s sole claim is that the audio had no probative value and was unduly prejudicial. We affirm.

Federal Rule of Evidence 103 requires that, to preserve for appellate review an objection to evidence, the objection must be specific, timely, and of record. *See United States v. Cabrera-Beltran,*660 F.3d 742, 751 (4th Cir.2011) (“An objection to the admission of evidence must be both specific and timely.”); *United States v. Parodi,*703 F.2d 768, 783 (4th Cir.1983) (holding party must “object with that reasonable degree of specificity which would have adequately apprised the trial court of the true basis for his objection and would have clearly stated the specific ground now asserted on appeal”) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). We find that Jackson failed to object to the evidence on the specific ground that he now asserts on appeal.

We review unpreserved evidentiary objections for plain error. *See Cabrera-Beltran,*660 F.3d at 751. Under this standard of review, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) “authorizes an appeals court to correct a forfeited error only if (1) there is an error, (2) the error is plain, and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” *Henderson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1126, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (internal quotation marks and *325brackets omitted). Because Rule 52(b) is permissive, we should correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *Id.*at 1127 (internal quotations marks and brackets omitted).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting the recording of Jackson’s interview. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.*
#### IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTOPHER PATRICK RYAN, M.D. v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITALS, KENNETH G. REEB, M.D., WARREN P. NEWTON, M.D., BRON D. SKINNER, Ph.D., SAMUEL WEIR, M.D., and PETER CURTIS, M.D.

No. 48PA98

(Filed 4 December 1998)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 128 N.C. App. 300, 494 S.E.2d 789 (1998), reversing an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint against defendant University of North Carolina Hospitals for failure to state a claim pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) entered by Battle, J., on 4 May 1995 in Superior Court, Orange County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 November 1998.

*Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Joseph T. Carruthers, for defendant-appellant UNC Hospitals.*

*Silva & Silva, P.A., by Lawrence H. Brenner, for plaintiffappellee.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Innova Robotic & Automation, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Smith, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innova Robotics and Automation, Inc. and will be retained by Innova Robotics and Automation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



April 15, 2008



| |                                                                             
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Robert G. Smith, Jr                                                     
| | Robert G. Smith, Jr.                                                        
| | Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Rodriguez, Appellant.

Submitted. February 14, 2012;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 88 AD3d 557.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
FILED

July 1, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

W. HUDSON CONNERY, JR., ET AL., )

)

Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9709-CH-00529

)

VS. ) Davidson Chancery

) No. 95-3865-I

)

COLUMBIA/HCA HEALTHCARE )

CORPORATION, ET AL., )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in Judge Todd’s opinion affirming the grant of summary

judgment to the defendants. I write separately simply to emphasize the following

points:

First, the bonus plan allowed the plaintiffs to purchase shares of the

company at a price below the market price. When the plaintiffs left the company

before the shares fully vested, they did not forfeit their investment; they simply lost

the difference between what they had invested and the market value of the shares.

The difference in the purchase price and the market value is what this controversy

is about.

Second, the plan gave the compensation committee the power to

“waive any conditions for the lapse or termination of restrictions with respect to all

or any portion of the Restricted Stock or Restricted Units.” Sec. 8(b) of the 1990

Plan. When the committee issued the restricted stock in October of 1994 -- with

the merger of the company with Columbia HCA Corporation pending -- it

specifically pointed out that vesting would not accelerate in the event of a “change
2

in control,” a condition that would have resulted in vesting under Sec. 18(h) of the

plan. Therefore, the restricted stock did not vest when the two companies merged.

Finally, I think the undisputed facts show that the plaintiffs voluntarily

left the company. Therefore, they could not take advantage of the provision that

the restricted stock would fully vest upon termination without cause.

_________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05834-PKC Document 11-2 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 25 of 25
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Asher Zwebner, Interim Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer and Director of Majic Wheels Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the
standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      July 23 , 2010.
                    By:
                    /s/
      Asher ZwebnerName: Asher
      ZwebnerTitle: Interim
      Chief Executive Officer, Financial Officer and Director(Principal
      Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### George Brown et al., Respondents, v Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC, et al., Appellants.

Submitted January 25, 2010;

decided April 6, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2011 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Roger A. May             
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Roger A. May                 
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Manager                      
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

IMPORTANT: Check box if Confidential Treatment is requested 

Registered Entity Identifier Code (optional): ___________________________ 

Organization: ______________________________________________________________________ 

Filing as a: DCM SEF DCO SDR Please note - only ONE choice allowed. 

Filing Date (mm/dd/yy): ___________ Filing Description:

SPECIFY FILING TYPE Please note only ONE choice allowed per Submission. 

Organization Rules and Rule Amendments

Certification § 40.6(a)

Approval § 40.5(a)

Notification § 40.6(d)

Advance Notice of SIDCO Rule Change § 40.10(a)

SIDCO Emergency Rule Change § 40.10(h)

 Rule Numbers: ____________________________________________________________________ 

New Product Please note only ONE product per Submission.

Certification § 40.2(a) 

Certification Security Futures § 41.23(a)

Certification Swap Class § 40.2(d)

Approval § 40.3(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.23(b) 

Novel Derivative Product Notification § 40.12(a)

Swap Submission § 39.5

 Official Product Name: _____________________________________________________________ 

Product Terms and Conditions (product related Rules and Rule Amendments)

Certification § 40.6(a) 

Certification Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.6(a)

Certification Security Futures § 41.24(a)

Delisting (No Open Interest) § 40.6(a) 

Approval § 40.5(a)

Approval Made Available to Trade Determination § 40.5(a)

Approval Security Futures § 41.24(b)

Approval Amendments to enumerated agricultural products § 40.4(a), § 40.5(a)

“Non-Material Agricultural Rule Change” § 40.4(b)(5)

Notification § 40.6(d)

 Official Name(s) of Product(s) Affected: ________________________________________________ 

Rule Numbers: ______________________________________________________________________ 

RTX Fintech & Research LLC

✔

Class certification under 17 CFR 40.2(d) of Interest Rate Swaps (IRS) Class.

08/24/23

✔

Interest Rate Swaps (IRS) Class
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The undersigned, Menachem M. Schneerson, the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Watchtower, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: August 13, 2010
 By:
/s/ Menachem M. SchneersonName:  Menachem M. SchneersonTitle:    President, Chief Executive Officer and

Director (Principal Executive Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.7  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM
ENGINEERS  We hereby consent to the
use and reference to our name and reports evaluating a portion of EnCana
Corporations petroleum and natural gas reserves as of December 31, 2008,
and the information derived from our reports, as described or incorporated by
reference in: (i) EnCana Corporations Annual Report on Form 40-F for
the year ended December 31, 2008; (ii) EnCana Corporations
registration statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-150453); (iii) EnCana
Corporations registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218,
333-13956, and 333-140856); and (iv) EnCana Corporations registration
statements on Form F-9 (File No. 333-149370), filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended as
applicable.  NETHERLAND,
  SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:
  /s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees
  III, P.E.C.H. (Scott) Rees III,
  P.E.Chairman and Chief Executive
  Officer  Dallas, Texas February 20, 2009
#### In the Matter of Alexander John B. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abandoned. Cynthia A., Appellant; Cardinal McCloskey Services et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided February 21, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 927.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Family Court’s denial of the motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### John Holmes, Petitioner for Review, *versus*Daniel Fox & *al.*

Where a resident of this State is temporarily absent, leaving an agent here, no valid service in a suit against him can be made by leaving a summons at the last and usual place of abode of his agent.

These facts appearing upon demurrer to a petition for a review, and it. further appearing that the plaintiff had had no hearing, a review was granted.

This was a. petition for a review, 1,o which a demurrer was filed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.

*108*Fox,*in support of the demurrer,

insisted that the officer’s return was conclusive, and that the plaintiff’s remedy was against him for a false return, and cited *Bruce*v. *Holden, 21*Pick. 189; *Stinson v. Snow,*1 Fairf. 263; *Agry*v. *Betts,*3 Fairf. 415.

*A. Haines, contra,*

referred to st. 1821, c. 57, ■§> 1, 2; st. 59, § 1, 2.

*Per Curiam.*

It appears from the plaintiff’s petition, that he is a resident in this State, and that while temporarily absent at New Orleans, a writ was served by leaving a summons with his agent at his residence at Portland. These facts are admitted by the demurrer.

The-question then arises whether or not, upon these facts, the plaintiff is entitled to his writ of review. It is objected, that- the officer has returned that he did make service of the original writ by leaving a summons at the last and usual place of abode of the agent of the plaintiff, and that his return is conclusive; and if false, that the plaintiff’s remedy is against such , officer for a false return. But there are difficulties in arriving at'this conclusion. The service upon the agent of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff was a resident and had his domicil in this State — and those facts the demurrer admits — was illegal, it being unauthorized by statute, save in two cases,— one when the individual, upon whose agent service was made, was never an inhabitánt of this State — the other, when having been an inhabitant, he has removed and changed his domicil.

The service made was not then good by statute. Besides, though the return of an officer be conclusive, the statute regulating reviews gives the Court great discretionary powers in relation to granting them or not. They are not limited by technical rules, but whenever it is satisfactorily made to appear that injustice has been done, the power is given them to remedy that injustice by granting the party injured his writ of review. It appears in this case that there has been no service, and that the plaintiff has had no hearing.

*Review granted.*
153 So. 917

#### FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS v. W. O. STUCKEY.

4 Div. 738.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 29, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Albeiro Valencia, Respondent.

Submitted March 1, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

*790Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Marianne Karas, Esq., PO Box 277, Armonk, New York 10504 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange
Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Carl Russo, Chief Executive Officer of Calix, Inc. (the Company), and Kelyn Brannon-Ahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the
6thday of May, 2010.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ CARL RUSSO         
|Carl Russo             
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ KELYN BRANNON-AHN  
|Kelyn Brannon-Ahn      
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Calix, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# Exhibit 99.1



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



---
EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries



Vascular Solutions, GmbH (Germany)

---