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

Exhibit 10.29



REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
2022 MANAGEMENT BONUS PROGRAM 


On February 2, 2022, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) approved the Company’s 2022 corporate objectives, weighted for purposes of determining bonuses, if any, for the Company’s executive officers with respect to 2022 performance (the “2022 Bonus Program”).


The 2021 Bonus Program is designed to reward, through the payment of annual cash bonuses, the Company’s executive officers for the Company’s performance in meeting key corporate objectives and for individual performance in meeting specified corporate goals for the year. 


The Company’s 2022 corporate goals include (i) achievement of specified revenue targets (35% weighting), (ii) achievement of cash runway goals (10% weighting); (iii) achievement of OPULTM Relational Commerce Platform goals (10%); (iv) achievement of regulatory milestones related to DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection for the treatment of glabellar lines (35% with an opportunity for an additional 10% based on the timing of achievement); (v) achievement of diversity and inclusion and organizational culture initiatives (10% weighting); as well as (vi) additional stretch goals relating to: other clinical and regulatory and product pipeline timing and milestones (20% weighting) and stretch revenue targets (5% or more based on achievement level).


The cash bonus for Mr. Foley will be based on the achievement of the 2022 corporate goals (100% weighting). For each of the other executive officers, the bonus will be based on achievement of corporate goals, subject to a modifier for individual performance that may increase or decrease the total bonus payout. The executive officers’ actual bonuses for fiscal year 2022 may exceed 100% of his or her 2022 target bonus percentage in the event performance exceeds the predetermined goals and/or upon the achievement of other specified goals, including stretch goals. Payment of bonuses to the Company’s executive officers under the 2022 Bonus Program and the actual amount of such bonus, if any, are at the discretion of the Committee.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00167

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JAMES VAUGHN IV AND AMBER VAUGHN

From the 369th District Court Leon County, Texas Trial Court No. CV20

- 0222

ABATEMENT ORDER

On September 10, 2021, Appellee Amber Vaughn (Amber) filed a notice designating Amy Ward (Ward) as her attorney in this appeal. Subsequently, o n September 13, 2021, Appellant James Vaughn IV (James) filed a Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel

. James asserts in his motion that in August 2020, he was a prospective
client of Ward . James states that he consulted with Ward about the underlying case but

that he declined to enter into a client

- lawyer relationship with her. James argues that this nevertheless creates a conflict of interest that prevents Ward from representing Amber in this appeal.In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 2 “[Texas Committee on Professional Ethics ] opinions are concerned with matters of attorney discipline and are advisory rather than binding. ” Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp. , 327 S.W.3d 859 , 866 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2010, no pet.).
Nevertheless, o pinion 691 of the Pro fessional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Texas provides: A lawyer who consults with a person about the possibility of forming a client

- lawyer relationship with respect to a matter owes that person a duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.05 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and may not use or reveal information communicated by the prospective client except in accordance with that Rule. A lawyer’s consultation with a prospective client may result in a disqualifying adverse limi tation under Rule 1.06(b)(2). Whether a lawyer’s representation of a client reasonably appears to be adversely limited by the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to a former prospective client is ordinarily a factual inquiry. As a general rule, a lawyer sho uld not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a former prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that pe rson in the matter. Tex. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Op. 691 (2021).

We therefore abate this cause to the trial court. The trial court is ORDERED to conduct an evidentiary hearing on James’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel

within 2 1 days of the date of this Order. The trial court is thereafter ORDERED to make findings of fact and conclusions of law within 28 days of the date of this Order

. The court reporter is ORDERED to file a supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing within 35 days of the date of this Order. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to fileIn re Marriage of Vaughn Page 3 a supplemental clerk’s record , containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions

of law , within 35 days of the da te of this Order.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray , Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Order issued and filed September 29, 2021 RWR
[No. 23841.

Department One.

December 6, 1932.]

#### P. E. Sullivan, *Appellant,*v. Ann Hughes Mahl et *al., Respondents.1*

*John J. Sullivan, Everett 0. Butts,*and *Michael F. Ward,*for appellant.

*James A. -Dougan. Joseph B. Smith & W. M. Vandercoolc, Egger-man <& Rosling,*and *Dyheman, Monheimer & Griffin,*for respondents.

Pee Curiam.

— This is a companion case of *Sullivan v. Lewis, ante*p. 413, and was tried with it in the superior court. The controlling facts and law are like those in that case, upon the authority of which the judgment in this case is affirmed.
#### LULA ROBINSON JOWERS, Petitioner, *v.*THE HONORABLE WILLIAM COMPTON, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 5051

March 1, 1966

411 P.2d 479

*96
      *Johnson & Steffen,*of Las Vegas, for Petitioner.

*Robert L. Reid,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Zenoff, D. J.:

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel the Eighth Judicial District Court to proceed to hearing and final determination in a will contest. The court stayed the matter pending outcome of California proceedings concerning a prior will executed in Los Angeles by the same decedent. Proponents of that will are contestants in the Nevada action. However petitioner, proponent of the subsequent “Nevada” will, has refused to enter the California adjudication and here protests that the Nevada court’s stay order either was without or in abuse of discretion. We disagree.

1. The court below simply granted contestants’ motion for a continuance. Such an action clearly was within the court’s discretion. Benson v. Benson, 66 Nev. 94, 204 P.2d 316; Neven v. Neven, 38 Nev. 541, 148 P. 354, 154 P. 78.

2. “It has long been the law in this state that mandamus will not lie to review discretionary acts of the trial court.” Wilmurth v. District Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2d 302, and cases cited therein.

Writ denied.

Thompson, J., concurs.

*97Justice Badt being unable to preside because of illness, the parties stipulated to the hearing and determination before the other members of the court.
Order entered January 12, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00481-CV

DAVID FUSARO, Appellant

V.

TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-04057-2012

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 8, 2015, motion for leave to file notice of 

supplemental authority. Appellant requests the Court accept a Texas Supreme Court opinion, 

attached to his motion, issued after the filing of appellant’s reply brief. We GRANT appellant’s 

motion and consider the supplemental authority attached to the motion received on January 8, 

2015, properly before the Court.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFREY NEWELL HUNNICUTT

No. 7315SC584

(Filed 10 October 1973)

Criminal Law §§ 23, 150 — no appeal from guilty plea

There is no right to appeal from a plea of guilty after 30 March 1973. G.S. 15-180.2.

Appeal by defendant from *Blount, Judge,*16 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Orange County.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.*

*Roy M. Cole for defendant appellant.*

*582HEDRICK, Judge.

The record reveals defendant, Jeffrey N. Hunnicutt, oh 17 April 1973, pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery. There is no right of appeal from a plea of guilty after 30 March 1973. G.S. 15-180.2. Therefore, We must treat the proceeding as a petition for writ of certiorari to review the proceedings in the superior court. Accordingly, we have reviewed the record which affirmatively discloses that the defendant, represented by court appointed counsel, freely, understanding^, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to a proper bill of indictment and that the prison sentence of. not less than 20 years nor more than 25 years imposed in. the'judgment is within the limits prescribed by statute for the charge in the bill of indictment. Therefore, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied and the appeal dismissed.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**ST. BERNARD SOFTWARE, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Alfred Riedler, Chief Financial Officer of St. Bernard Software, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof St. Bernard Software, Inc. (“Registrant”); 

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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,                         *et seq.*).                     

# DATES:

Written data or comments must be received on or before December 1, 2005. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send written data or comments to the Regional Director (Attention: Peter Fasbender), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Peter Fasbender, (612) 713-5343. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Permit Number:*                     TE113009.                 

*Applicant:*                     Steven Ahlstedt, Norris, Tennessee.                 

                    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take the white catspaw (                    *Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua*) and purple catspaw (                    *E. o. obliquata*) throughout Indiana and Ohio. The scientific research is aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.                 

Dated: October 12, 2005. 

Wendi Weber, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 05-21694 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Exhibit 10.32
​
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
2021 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
​
This First Amendment to 2021 Employment Agreement (“First Amendment”) is made as of December 31, 2021 by and between Global GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and Gregory B. Hanson (the “Executive”), and amends that certain Employment Agreement by and between the Company and the Executive dated as of September 1, 2021 (the “2021 G. Hanson Employment Agreement”). 
​
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to extend the initial term of the 2021 G. Hanson Employment Agreement as set forth below; 
​
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations contained herein, the sufficiency of which the Company and the Executive each acknowledges, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 
​
		1.	Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings 

ascribed to such terms in the 2021 G. Hanson Employment Agreement. 
​
		2.	The Company and the Executive agree that the Initial Term of the 2021 G. Hanson 

Employment Agreement shall be and hereby is extended through the earlier of (i) the date of execution of a mutually agreeable new 2022 employment agreement by and between the Company and Mr. Hanson, and (ii) April 15, 2022. 
​
		3.	Except as herein modified, all the other terms, provisions, and agreements contained 

in the 2021 G. Hanson Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, it being the intention of the parties to amend only the specific term, provision and agreement described hereinabove. 
​
[Signature page follows]



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this First Amendment this 28th day of January, 2022. 
​
GLOBAL GP LLC
​
By: ___/s/ Eric Slifka________________
Name: Eric Slifka
Title: Chief Executive Officer
​
GREGORY B. HANSON
​
___/s/ Gregory B. Hanson___________
Exhibit 11

            INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  Schedule of Computation of Earnings per Share
                                    (unaudited)

                     (in thousands, except per share amounts)




                                THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,
                                   1995       1994       1995       1994
                                -------    -------    -------    -------
Average shares of common
  stock outstanding              17,967     17,924     17,959     17,979
Common stock equivalents            125          7        101         15
Total common stock and 
  equivalents assuming
  full dilution                  18,092     17,931     18,060     17,994

Net earnings                     $6,792    $10,914    $18,343    $45,311

Less dividends on redeemable
  preferred stock                     -        (42)      (260)      (126)

Net earnings applicable to
  common stock                   $6,792    $10,872    $18,083    $45,185

Earnings per share of
  common stock:
    Primary                      $  .38    $   .61    $  1.01    $  2.51
    Fully diluted                $  .38    $   .61    $  1.00    $  2.51


Primary earnings per share has been computed by dividing net earnings, 
after deduction of preferred stock dividends, by the weighted average 
number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.  Common 
stock options and other common stock equivalents have not entered into the 
primary earnings per share computations since their effect is not 
significant.

Fully diluted earnings per share has been computed assuming issuance of 
all shares for stock options deemed to be common stock equivalents, using 
the treasury stock method.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, John Swallow, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 14, 2007.  /s/ John Swallow _______________________ John Swallow (CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)   1
#### SHERMAN GROSNEY, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10431

March 15, 1978

575 P.2d 941

*Gary Logan,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *L. J. O’Neale,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*136OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Pursuant to a True Bill by a Clark County Grand Jury, Sherman Grosney was indicted for the felonious sale of cocaine, a controlled substance (NRS 453.321; NRS 453.171). A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenged the quantum and quality of the evidence presented to the grand jury. Habeas was denied and in this appeal Grosney contends we are compelled to reverse. We do not agree.

The transcript of the grand jury proceedings reflects that on the morning of October 3, 1977, an undercover narcotics officer met with Lorraine Thompson for the stated purpose of purchasing a quantity of cocaine. Thompson traveled with the officer in his automobile to an exclusive apartment complex in Las Vegas. The two were allowed to pass through a security gate to the parking lot after Thompson stated to the guard: “Lorraine Thompson to see Sherman Grosney.” The officer then parked and handed Thompson five (5) “marked” $100 bills. Thompson left the automobile and vanished into the apartment complex. She returned about five minutes later and handed the officer a pill bottle which, according to Thompson, contained cocaine. The officer, who had remained in the automobile during Thompson’s absence, then placed Thompson under arrest and proceeded, with a confederate, to the Grosney apartment.

After announcing their presence and receiving no response, the officers forced entry into the apartment where they observed Sherman Grosney seated behind a coffee table. Another person was also in the apartment. Three of the marked $100 bills were on the coffee table and were seized. Grosney was arrested and one of the marked $100 bills was recovered from his person when he was searched. [The fifth marked bill was not accounted for.]

In our view, the recited facts are sufficient to support the district judge’s determination that Grosney probably committed the charged offense. NRS 172.155(1); Kinsey v. Sheriff, 87 Nev. 361, 487 P.2d 340 (1971).

“[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 327, 512 P.2d 774, 775 (1973).

Accordingly, we affirm.