alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2




Jack Dennison

2005 Executive Bonus Plan



For 2005, you will be eligible to receive a performance bonus based upon achievement of performance
objectives. Your bonus may be up to the following amounts:



Sixty Percent (60%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Corporate Financial Performance (as
outlined below). Forty Percent (40%) of your 2005 bonus award will be based on Individual
Performance Objectives (as outlined below). Your Target Bonus for 2005 is $400,000. Your Target
Bonus is your expected bonus amount assuming successful achievement of all of your performance
objectives. If you significantly exceed your performance objectives, you may receive a bonus in
excess of your Target Bonus, up to a maximum of 200% of your Target Bonus.




	 	 	 
	At Threshold Performance Level:

	 	0% of Target Bonus
	 
	 	 
	At Target Performance Level:

	 	100% of Target Bonus (60% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 40% for Individual
Performance)
	 
	 	 
	At Growth Performance Level:

	 	200% of Target Bonus (120% for Corporate
Financial Performance; 80% for Individual
Performance)





Achievement in between levels will be calculated according to a bonus formula described below.



Corporate Financial Performance Element



The Corporate Financial Performance element will be determined based on a financial matrix that
includes Cash Operating Income and Revenue components. For purposes of this Bonus Plan, “Cash
Operating Income” means Operating Income less non-cash charges and extraordinary, non-recurring
items, calculated before payment of executive bonuses. A copy of the matrix for your 2005 bonus,
as approved by the Compensation Committee, is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus
Plan.



Individual Performance Objectives



Your maximum potential bonus award for the Individual Performance element is 80% of your Target
Bonus (for extraordinary performance). Your expected bonus for the Individual Performance Element
is 40% of your Target Bonus (at acceptable satisfaction of your objectives). A copy of your
individual performance objectives is being provided to you in connection with this Bonus Plan.




37
OCEAN HILL JOINT VENTURE, Ocean Hill Properties, Inc.; the Villages at Ocean Hill Community Association, Inc.; Ernest Wood & wife, Jane Wood; Richard Gonzalez & wife, Debra Gonzalez; Rosalee Chiara; Robert Ramirez &

*809wife, Janice Serino; Gary Robinson & wife, Susan Robinson; Daniel Hunt & wife, Cathy Hunt; Barry Heyman & wife, Ellen Heyman; Stephen Daimler & wife, Carol Daimler; David Bova & wife, Carrie Bova v. THE CURRITUCK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and Ocean Hill I Property Owners Association, Inc.

No. 382PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina, First District.

October 5, 2006.

John R. Wester, Jonathan C. Krisko, Charlotte, Thomas P. Nash, IV, Elizabeth City, for Ocean Hill I Prop. Owners Asso.

C. Everett Thompson, II, Elizabeth City, for Ocean Hill Joint Venture et al.

Katherine F. McKenzie, Raleigh, for Currituck County Bd. of Comm.

Paul A. Meyer, Assistant General Counsel, for NC Asso. of County Commissioners.

Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Senior Assistant General Counsel, for NC League of Municipalities.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondents (Currituck County Board of Commissioners and Ocean Hill I Property Owners Asso.) on the 24th day of July 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Petitioners (Ocean Hill Joint Venture), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of July 2006 by Respondents (Currituck County Board of Commissioners and Ocean Hill I Property Hill Owners Association) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Respondents shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
Cite as 2015 Ark. 282 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No.

IN RE APPELLATE MOTION

ELECTRONIC-FILING PILOT 

PROJECT

Opinion Delivered June 18, 2015

PER CURIAM 

Administrative Order Number 21 encourages every court of this state to 

implement an electronic filing system and vests this court with the authority to adopt 

electronic filing in the appellate courts of this state. See Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 

21(3)(a)(3)–(4). Pursuant to that Order, we announce our intent to implement an 

electronic filing system in this court and the court of appeals as soon as practicable. To that 

end, we authorize the establishment of an electronic-filing pilot project limited to select 

motions filed in the appellate courts to begin this summer as a first step toward mandatory 

electronic filing in the appellate courts. See id. § (3)(b). 

Upon the Administrative Office of the Court’s (“AOC”) completion of the 

technical changes needed to provide electronic filing of motions in the appellate courts, 

parties shall be permitted to file and serve select motions and petitions, and any responses 

thereto, via the electronic system, eFlex, which is provided by the AOC. In the interim, 

however, parties will not be permitted to electronically file or serve any motion or 

petition that requires the payment of any fee as a prerequisite to the filing. 

Parties who elect to file documents electronically shall be excused from the 

requirements of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-1(b) regarding the filing of paper copies. 
Cite as 2015 Ark. 282

2 

Should there be any other irreconcilable discrepancies between Administrative Order 

Number 21 and the Rules of the Supreme Court, Administrative Order Number 21 shall 

govern with respect to electronic filings until such time as the court amends the Rules to 

accommodate electronic filing. Additionally, the clerk of this court is authorized to 

promulgate and update policies and procedures for the implementation of this order and 

for the use and operation of the electronic-filing and document-management systems. 

Persons with existing eFlex accounts will not be required to take any further steps 

to acquire electronic filing capabilities in the appellate courts. Persons who have not yet 

acquired an eFlex account should follow the AOC’s registration requirements available at 

https://courts.arkansas.gov/administration/acap/efile to access the electronic filing system.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jackie Dewese, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 205]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 30, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony and physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The police saw the defendant and a codefendant, who fit the description of the perpetrators given by the complainant, walking down the street within close proximity to the crime scene, shortly after the crime occurred *(see People v Christopher,*21 AD3d 425 [2005] [decided herewith]). The police had reasonable suspicion to pursue, stop, and detain the defendant based on his *427sudden disappearance when the police approached him, hiding to avoid detection, and flight *(see People v Woods,*98 NY2d 627 [2002]; *People v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234 [1986]; *People v Hunt,*306 AD2d 497 [2003]; *People v Rowlett,*193 AD2d 768 [1993]). Accordingly, his stop and brief detention were lawful *(see People v Hicks, supra),*and suppression was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D20-1; 3D20-1063 Lower Tribunal No. 17-25327

________________ Jetstream International, LLC, et al.,

Appellants 

### , vs. Student Travel Services, LLC, etc., et al.,

Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Law Offices of Robert P. Frankel, P.A., and Robert P. Frankel (Plantation), for appellants. Clarke Silverglate, P.A., Spencer H. Silverglate and Shannon P. McKenna, for appellee STS Travel Group, LLC. Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73, 80 (Fla. 2012) (“An agreement between parties to be bound by the substantive laws of another jurisdiction is presumptively valid, and this Court will enforce a choice-of-law provision unless applying the chosen forum’s law would contravene a strong public policy of this State.”); Burroughs Corp. v. Suntogs of Miami, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1166, 1169 (Fla. 1985) (concluding the contractual provision applying another state’s law regarding the limitations period was not contrary to a strong public policy); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979).
HEDINGHAM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. GLH BUILDERS, INC.

No. 482P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Brent E. Wood, Cary, Phillip K. Woods, for Hedingham Community Asso.

William C. Smith, Jr., Raleigh, for GLH Builders, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of September 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
HOLLY RIDGE ASSO. v. NCDENR, et al.

No. 218A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 17, 2007.

Alexander Elkan, George W. House, S. Kyle Woosley, Greensboro, for Holly Ridge Associates, LLC.

James Gulick, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Nancy Reed Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, for NCDENR, et al.

*806Derb S. Carter, Jr., Chapel Hill, Amy Pickle, for NC Shellfish Growers Asso., et al.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 17th day of January 2007 by Respondents and Intervenor Respondents for Extension of Time:

"Motion Allowed. Respondents and Intervenor Respondents shall have up to and including the 6th day of February 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of January 2007."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5486 

To expand the boundaries of the Little River Canyon National Preserve 

in the State of Alabama. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2008 

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama (for himself and Mr. ADERHOLT) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To expand the boundaries of the Little River Canyon 

National Preserve in the State of Alabama. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LITTLE RIVER CANYON NATIONAL PRESERVE 

4 BOUNDARY EXPANSION. 

5 Section 2 of the Little River Canyon National Pre6 serve Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 698q) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘The Preserve’’ and insert9 ing the following: 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Preserve’’; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5486 IH

1 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(2) BOUNDARY EXPANSION.—The boundary of 

3 the Preserve is modified to include the land depicted 

4 on the map entitled ‘Little River Canyon National 

5 Preserve Proposed Boundary’, numbered 152/ 

6 80,004, and dated July 31, 2007.’’; and 

7 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘map’’ and in8 serting ‘‘maps’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE v. WARD.

No. COA05-1451.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Pitt (01CRS5620, 01CRS53242).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                             To the Shareholders of
                 HERTZ COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS (1985) LTD.

We have audited the balance sheet of Hertz Computer Information Systems (1985)
Ltd. ("the Company") as at August 31, 1996 and the related statement of income,
statement of changes in shareholders' equity and statement of cash flows for the
year ended August 31, 1996.

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, including those prescribed by the Israeli Auditors' Regulation (mode
of performance), 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatements, either originating within the financial
statements themselves, or due to any misleading statement included therein. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well
as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Information regarding the effect of changes in the general purchasing power of
the Israeli currency on the profit and loss in accordance with the opinions of
the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel, is not included in the
above mentioned statements.

The accounts of the Company are maintained in Israeli Shekels. The financial
statements in the U.S. Dollar have been translated to Israeli Shekels solely for
the convenience of the readers.


                                      -1-
<PAGE>

In our opinion, the aforementioned financial statements, except for the above
mentioned, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
the Company as of August 31, 1996 and the results of their operations, changes
in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended August 31, 1996, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in Israel and in the
United States (as applicable to these financial statements, such accounting
principles are practically identical).

In addition, we point out that we have received all the information and
explanations required, and that our opinion on the above statements is given
according to the best of our knowledge and explanations that we received and
shown in the books of the Company.


                                                   Shlomo Ziv & Co.


                                          Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
                                          (A member of Summit International)


Tel-Aviv, Israel
November 11, 1996
                                      -2-
GOOD HOPE HOSPITAL, INC. and Good Hope Health System, L.L.C., Petitioners and The Town of Lillington, Petitioner-Intervenor v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent, and Betsy Johnson Regional Hospital, Inc., and Amisub of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Central Carolina Hospital, Respondent-Intervenors.

No. 58A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Maureen D. Murray, Susan M. Fradenburg, Greensboro, William W. Stewart, Jr., Raleigh, for Good Hope Hospital.

C. Winston Gilchrist, Lillington, for Town of Lillington.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Marcus Lodge, for NCDHHS.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Benjamin N. Thompson, K. Edward Greene, Kathleen A. Naggs, Raleigh, Denise M. Gunter, Winston-Salem, for Betsy Johnson Regional Hosp.

S. Todd Hemphill, Diana E. Ricketts, Raleigh, for Amisub of NC.

Forrest W. Campbell, Jr., Greensboro, for NC Hospital Asso.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of February 2006 by Petitioners in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Petitioner on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners on the 7th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
Affirm and Opinion Filed November, 2012

In The 

## Qlourtofppeat9 jfiftfj 

## itrittof 11exa5 

## at atta No. 05-12-00904-CR ANDRES HERRERA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F08-11091-R



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Richter, Lang-Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Myers Andres 1-lerrera was convicted of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon. Punishmentwas assessed at seven years’ imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. Appellant later filed a motion for post-conviction DNA testing, which was denied. Based on the trial court’s findings that appellant has not communicated with counsel and that he has beenremoved from the United States and returned to his native country, we concluded appellant no longer desires to pursue the appeal. We orderedthe appeal submitted withoutbriefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4). Absent briefs, no issues are beforeus.Finding no fundamental error, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion for post-conviction DNA testing.

LANA MY RS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEx, R. App. P.47

## (!uitrt of\ppraIs iftI! Thtrirt of 

## iJixa at Thdta JUDGMENT ANDRES HERRERA,, Appellant No. 05-1 2-00904-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal fromthe 265thJudicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Trial Court No. F08-11091-R). Opinion deliveredby JusticeMyers, Justices Richterand Lang-Miers participating. Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motionforpost-convictionDNAtesting. Judgmententered November 28,2012
LANAM ERS JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 49706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16759]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission; Notice of Meeting 
Amendment

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-4463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' 
Disability Benefits Commission has changed the location of its meeting 
scheduled on August 26, 2005, to the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 
Hamilton Ballroom on the lower level, 1001 14th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will not be held at the Shriners 
Almas Temple (adjacent to the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel), 1315 K 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. 
and conclude at 4:30 p.m. and is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the 
benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to 
compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and 
deaths attributable to military service.
    On August 26, 2005, the Commission will engage in panel discussions 
with current and former employees of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the House Committees on Armed 
Services and Veterans' Affairs with knowledge and expertise in programs 
to assist and compensate disabled retirees and veterans and their 
survivors. The agenda will also include briefings by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to provide the 
Commission with an understanding of programs to intervene, diagnose, 
treat, and assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
    Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the 
Commission. Interested parties may provide written comments for review 
by the Commission at any time to Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive Director, 
Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004, or by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81f7e4f5f2e2eeecece8f2f2e8eeefc1f7e0afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7204170601111d1f1f1b01011b1d1c3204135c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>. Information on the Commission may be found at 
http://www.va.gov/vetscommission.

    Dated: August 18, 2005.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-16759 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE v. ELLER.

COA06-61.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 17, 2006.

Certification Date November 6, 2006.

Appeal from Davidson (03CRS61738)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.