alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of VASCO Data Security International, Inc.



|                                            |  |                                  
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                          |  | State or Country of Incorporation
|VASCO Data Security, Inc.                   |  | Delaware, U.S.A.                 
|VASCO Data Security Europe NV/SA            |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security NV/SA                   |  | Belgium                          
|Lintel Security NV/SA                       |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd    |  | Singapore                        
|VASCO Data Security Pty Ltd                 |  | Australia                        
|VASCO Data Security Australia Pty Ltd       |  | Australia                        
|VASCO Data Security B.V.                    |  | The Netherlands                  
|VASCO Data Security Austria GmbH            |  | Austria                          
|Able NV                                     |  | Belgium                          
|Able Holding BVBA                           |  | Belgium                          
|VASCO Data Security International, GmbH     |  | Switzerland                      
|VASCO Segurança de Dados Brasil Ltda.       |  | Brazil                           
|Kabushiki Kaisha VASCO Data Security Japan  |  | Japan                            
|VASCO Data Security Private (India) Limited |  | India
----

(2004/C 33 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/03

by Theodoras Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Breach of the directive on working time (directive dealing with a number of aspects of the organisation of working time) by several Member States

Not least through the proceedings of the working group of national experts, the Commission is no doubt aware that a number of Member States have failed to comply with the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the SIMAP case (C-303/98).

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission organised a meeting with Member States' representatives on 28 April 2003 regarding the future communication from the Commission concerning Directive 93/104/EC (2). The agenda for this meeting included an item on the follow-up to the SIMAP judgment (3). At this meeting, the Commission informed the Member States' representatives of the latest developments and held a debate with a view to ascertaining their opinions so that these could be taken into account in the communication on working time.

In addition, the Commission is currently analysing Member States' legislation in the light of the SIMAP judgment, with a view to proposing the launch of the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty in all cases where this is justified.

----

(1)OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 217.

(2)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000, Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v. Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, European Court Reports 2000, p. I-07963.

----
# C_2023189EN.01001001.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Haskovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 February 2023 — ‘Ekostroy’ EOOD v Agentsia ‘Patna infrastruktura’

(Case C-61/23, Еkostroy)

(2023/C 189/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Аdministrativen sad Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Ekostroy’ EOOD

Respondent: Agentsia ‘Patna infrastruktura’

Question referred

Must Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that article that penalties for infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to that directive must be proportionate precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine (on natural or legal persons) for infringements of the provisions relating to the obligation to ascertain and pay in advance a toll for the use of the road infrastructure, irrespective of the nature and gravity of the infringement, with the option of being exempted from liability to pay an administrative penalty through payment of a so-called ‘redress charge’?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DAVID B. HOWE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-592

)

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as )

Trustee for SG Mortgage Securities Trust )

2006-FRE2, Asset Backed Certificates, )

Series 2006-FRE2; GARY W. NASH, as )

Trustee of the Remar Trust 207017601; )

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Senior 

Judge.

David B. Howe, pro se.

Shannon Troutman of Albertelli Law, 

Tampa, for Appellee U.S. Bank National 

Association.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 
- 2 -

SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Agnes Mullaney, Appellant, v Joseph Koenig et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 343]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), dated February 13, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is proper for this Court, on appeal, to consider the defendants’ contention that the record contains no evidence of a defective or dangerous condition existing on their premises at the time of the accident *(see Block v Magee,*146 AD2d 730 [1989]). The defendants established a prima facie case that no dangerous or defective condition existed on their premises at the time of the accident *(see Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth.,*300 AD2d 336 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion. Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-240) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for review of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2000) and for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Bryson , No. CR-01-240 (D.S.C. July 18, 2003). In his informal brief, Bryson asserts several claims that were not raised in the district court. We decline to address these claims. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to consider claims raised for first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Igloo Holdings Corporation Amendment No.1 to 2010 Stock Incentive Plan



  
 Exhibit 10.9 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE 
 IGLOO HOLDINGS CORPORATION 

2010 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Igloo Holdings Corporation 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective as of this 15th day of September 2010. 

WHEREAS, Igloo Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended by the Company’s Board of Directors
(the “Board”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend
the Plan as set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. By restating the definition of “Permitted Transfer” in Section 2(y) as follows: 

““Permitted Transfer” means any transfer by a Participant of all or any portion of his shares of Stock (or Options,
for purposes of Section 5(f) below) to (i) any trust established for the sole benefit of such Participant or such Participant’s spouse, direct lineal descendents, or brothers- or sisters-in-law, provided such Participant is the
sole trustee of such trust, (ii) any other entity (including an Individual Retirement Account or similar investment account) in which the direct and beneficial owner of all voting securities of such entity is held by such Participant, or
(iii) such Participant’s heirs, executors, administrators, or personal representatives upon the death of such Participant.” 
 2. By restating Section 5(f) in its entirety as follows: 

“Transferability of Options. Except in connection with a Permitted Transfer of Options, an Option shall not be transferable
except by will or by the laws of descent and distribution and shall be exercisable during the lifetime of the Participant only by the Participant. To the extent a Participant wishes to make a Permitted Transfer of Options, it shall be a condition of
each such Permitted Transfer that (x) the transferee agrees to be bound by the terms of the Plan and the applicable Award agreement as though no such transfer had taken place, and (y) the Participant has complied with all applicable law in
connection with such transfer. The Participant and the transferee shall execute any documents reasonably required by the Committee to effectuate such Permitted Transfer.” 







  
 Except as modified by
this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain valid and in full force and effect. 

*        *        * 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.] 

  
 - 2 -









  
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed this instrument as of the
15th day of September 2010, on behalf of the Board.

  

			
	IGLOO HOLDINGS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mason Slaine

	Name: Mason Slaine
	Title: Chairman



[Signature Page to Amendment 1 to Stock Incentive Plan]
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC.

 

DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE BONUS PROGRAM

 

Array BioPharma Inc. (the “Company”) has established an annual performance bonus program for employees, including the Company’s executive officers. Through this program, employees can receive an annual bonus payable in cash, stock or stock option equivalents based on achievement of key Company and individual goals.  There is no guarantee that bonuses will be awarded in any given year. The bonus program is intended to strengthen the connection between individual compensation and Company success; reinforce the Company’s pay-for-performance philosophy by awarding higher bonuses to higher performing employees; and help ensure that the Company’s cash compensation is competitive.

 

The Compensation Committee recommends for approval by the independent directors of the Board the minimum, target and stretch corporate performance goals, and the relative weighting of these goals, for the upcoming fiscal year. The goals generally are based on the following objective performance criteria: financial goals relating to revenue, year-end cash, cash equivalents and accounts receivable balance, and partnership objectives, discovery research goals and clinical development goals. Each participant in the bonus program may be eligible to receive a target bonus amount calculated by multiplying the participant’s base salary by a percentage value later assigned to the participant or his or her position with the Company by the Compensation Committee.

 

Following the end of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee determines in its discretion the extent to which the company-wide and individual performance goals were attained. Based on this assessment, the Compensation Committee will award bonuses equal to a varying percentage of an employee’s target bonus amount. The Compensation Committee may award a bonus in an amount less than or greater than the amount earned by a participant under the bonus program.

 

Individual bonuses can vary significantly based on performance. Any bonuses for a particular year are paid as a lump sum in cash, stock or stock option equivalents (or any combination thereof), less applicable payroll and other withholdings, in the quarter following that year. The plan can be amended in whole or in part by the Compensation Committee at any time until paid.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                              35,790
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       73,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         5,012
<INVENTORY>                                                         56,568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   183,398
<PP&E>                                                             750,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      64,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   1,832,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              139,468
<BONDS>                                                          1,033,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                           748,649
<OTHER-SE>                                                         (94,621)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     1,832,052
<SALES>                                                            713,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   713,668
<CGS>                                                              212,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      630,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     8,152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 118,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    (43,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       (12,776)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                (30,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    (24,728)
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       (55,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (1.23)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WESTERN
WIRELESS CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF
AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,176
<INVENTORY>                                      9,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,959
<PP&E>                                         788,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                 328,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,529,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,943
<BONDS>                                      1,592,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       689,591
<OTHER-SE>                                   (857,928)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,529,676
<SALES>                                         21,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,242
<CGS>                                           20,227
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  267,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (67,050)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,874
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,377)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,323)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
DEPT. OF CORRECTION v. MEDICAL BOARD.

No. 51PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2008.

Thomas J. Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Finarelli, Assistant Attorney General, for Dept. of Correction, et al.

Brian L. Blankenship, D. Todd Brosius, for Medical Board.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Raleigh, for American Medical Asso.

Timothy C. Miller, J.D., Senior Director, for FSMB.

Sarah L. Buthe, Raleigh, Carl J. Chiappa, New York, NY, Logan M. Breed, Washington, DC, Aaron C. Mahler, for Physicians for Human Rights.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of December 2008 by Defendant to Supplement the Record:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of December 2008."

Justice BRADY recused as to Motion to Supplement only.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7258

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAVID ROBERT WALL, a/k/a Rob , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr - 00022

- MSD

- LRL

- 3 ; 2:17

- cv 00488

- MSD )

Submitted : March 14, 2019 Decided: March 26, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Robert Wall , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Robert Wall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealabilit y will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural ground s, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and con clude that Wall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IN RE L.O.

No. COA08-323.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 2, 2008.

Certification Date September 22, 2008.

Appeal from Alleghany (07JA45).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") of
Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

| | /s/ Theodore F. Craver, Jr.Theodore F. Craver, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ W. James ScilacciW. James Scilacci
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy            

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks