alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.37





 Exhibit 10.37 

THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC. 

c/o Apollo Management VIII, L.P. 

9 West 57th Street 
 New
York, NY 10019 
 January 20, 2022 
 Michelle
Almarode 
 Group Vice President, Finance and Business Strategy 

Re: Stock Option 
 Dear Michelle: 

We are pleased to inform you that we have made certain favorable changes to the stock option that was previously granted to you pursuant to the Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”) of The Fresh Market Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”). Specifically, your option to purchase 50,000 shares that was granted on November 6, 2019 (“Option”) has been modified as
follows: 
 (i) Effective upon an IPO (as defined in the Plan) and provided you remain employed through the date of the IPO, your Option
will vest as to 5% of the portion thereof that is unvested at the time of the IPO; and 
 (ii) Effective upon an IPO, a number of shares
equal to the shares underlying the portion of the Option that vests pursuant to the preceding clause will be released from the transfer restrictions imposed by Section 9(a) of the Option Plan, provided that the foregoing will not be construed
as releasing any shares that are non-transferable by reason of a standstill agreement or related agreement entered into at the request of the managing underwriters of the IPO. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the shares released from the transfer restrictions will be treated as having been released pursuant to Section 5 of your
option grant letter, and therefore will reduce the number of shares that may subsequently be released upon an Investor Sale (as defined in such Section 5). 

Except for these changes, your Option will remain in effect in accordance with its terms. 

Sincerely, 
 THE FRESH MARKET HOLDINGS, INC. 

 
 



 
 Jason Potter, CEO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DAMON SYKES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10298 

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00607-JSW-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Damon Sykes appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. 

Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-10298 

Sykes contends the district court abused its discretion when, without first 

considering whether his proffered conditions of release were enough to assure the 

safety of the community, it found that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

particularly the danger he posed to the community, did not support a sentence 

reduction. He argues that his proposed release plan, considered in the context of 

his positive behavior while in prison rather than his criminal history, warranted 

granting his motion.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Sykes posed 

a danger to the community in light of the seriousness of his armed bank robbery 

offense, committed while on supervised release for a previous armed bank robbery 

conviction, and his prior convictions. The court properly weighed the § 3553(a) 

factors, including Sykes’s rehabilitation and excellent custodial record, and did not 

abuse its discretion in concluding that the totality of the factors weighed against 

reduction. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a 

district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or 

without support in the record).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,993,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,547,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,700,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   133,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,241,000
<PP&E>                                      71,706,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (36,529,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,418,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,305,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,802,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,666,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,418,000
<SALES>                                     24,198,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,198,000
<CGS>                                       34,637,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,637,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               300,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,829,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,399,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,430,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,430,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)


</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14953-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv2574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDNA GOYA, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-2574 H (AJB)

ORDER SUBMITTING

MOTION TO STAY AND

MOTION TO REMAND ON

THE PAPERS

(Doc. Nos. 6 & 10.)

vs.

MERCK & CO., INC., a corporation;

MCKESSON CORPORATION, a

corporation; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendant.

Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) removed this case from state court on

November 21, 2006. (Doc. No. 1.) In her complaint, Plaintiff Edna Goya alleges that

she suffered injuries caused by her use of Merck’s product, Fosamax. (Id.) On

December 14, 2006, Merck filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a decision by the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as to whether this action should be transferred

to In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL NO. 1789, currently pending before Judge

John Keenan in the Southern District of New York. (Doc. No. 6.) Merck noticed its

motion for January 16, 2007. On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to

remand. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff noticed her motion for February 12, 2007.

Pursuant to its discretion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court submits the

motions on the papers without oral argument. Additionally, the briefing schedules for

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-14 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 16 Filed 01/05/2007 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv2574

the motions remain unchanged. If the Court determines that oral argument is

appropriate, it will notify the parties and set a hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

Hector G. Gancedo

Tina B. Neives

Amy M. Boomhouwer

Gancedo & Nieves, LLP

144 W. Colorado Blvd.

Pasadena, CA 91105

Douglas Emhoff

Jeffrey Tanzer

Venable LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 2-14 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:06-cv-02574-H-AJB Document 16 Filed 01/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5606 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5606

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania, as the ``James M. 
                `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES M. ``JIMMY'' STEWART POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James M. `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James M. 
`Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30 
      (legislative day September 29), 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5606

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 47 South 7th Street in Indiana, Pennsylvania, as the ``James M. 
                `Jimmy' Stewart Post Office Building''.
```
#### FRED EIKELBERGER and MARGARET A. EIKELBERGER, Appellants, v. JOHN TOLOTTI, LUIGI MANZO, PIERENO MANZO and DOROTHY B. MANZO, Respondents.

No. 6796

December 30, 1974

530 P.2d 105

*Lohse and Lohse, Chartered,*of Reno, for Appellants.

*Sanford, Sandford & Fahrenkopf,*of Reno, for Respondents Manzo.

*Stewart, Horton & McKissick, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Respondent Tolotti.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The City of Sparks and the State of Nevada filed condemnation actions concerning portions of the Y-Rancho Trailer Park in Sparks, alleging record title in respondents and a leasehold *466interest in appellants. Both entities deposited the compensation funds with the court; all parties agreed to consolidation Of the two actions; and the court, pursuant to NRS 37.115, ruled that respondents, as fee owners, were entitled to all of the funds.

On appeal, appellants contend the district court erred in refusing to continue the trial of the instant case until this court decided a pending appeal involving appellants Eikelberger and respondent Tolotti. We perceive no merit in this contention because, contrary to appellants’ assertions the pending appeal (Case No. 6558, also decided this date) did not involve issues affecting determination of the instant matter.

Neither does it appear to us, as contended by appellants, that the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in the instant case were outside the issues tendered by the parties, nor that the judgment was unsupported by the evidence.

Affirmed.
#### LEASING, INC. v. DAN-CLEVE CORP.

No. 84 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 18.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 6 May 1975.
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 5      Filed 12/02/2004     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14991-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.23


The Compensation Committee will conduct an annual evaluation of the CEO's 
performance, in terms of individual and Company results.  The results of this 
review are measured against specified criteria established at the beginning of 
each year to determine the annual bonus payment for the CEO.

At the beginning of each performance period, the Compensation Committee will set
the performance expectation for each criterion.

     .    Company Performance - determined using the weighted average of the 
          objective measurement of specific criteria.  The target award is paid 
          when the expected performance is achieved.  A maximum payment equal to
          120% of the target award is paid for exceptional performance (defined 
          as expected performance plus 20%).

     .    CEO Performance - determined by the subjective measurement of 
          performance criteria identified annually.  The measurement scale 
          ranges from 1 to 10 with 10 equaling 120% of the target bonus and 1 
          equaling no payment.  A score of 5 equates to 55% of the target bonus.
          Linear interpolation is used to determine the award levels of scores 
          between whole numbers.

Target Incentive Level
----------------------

The recommended targeted incentive level for the CEO is 40% of salary.  No 
incentive is paid if performance falls below 80% of the targeted level.  Maximum
payment of 120% of the targeted bonus (48% of salary) is awarded for actual 
performance as specified by each performance criteria.

Performance Criteria
--------------------

The specific criteria and weightings to be used in the evaluation are:

Company Performance (60% of total incentive opportunity)

     Pre Patronage Dividend Income
     Capital Adequacy
     Asset Utilization

CEO and Senior Management Team Performance (40% of total incentive opportunity)

     CEO Leadership with the Board
     CEO Leadership with Senior Management
     CEO External Impact (industry, community)
     Performance of senior management as a team
##### 



CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS PLAN
FOR WILLIAM R. HARTMAN
  COVERAGE
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT
 AMOUNT AT OR AFTER AGE 62-1/2 1 2
  1 2 1 2
 AMOUNT AT AGE PRIOR TO AGE 62-1/2 1 2
 1 3 1 2
  COMMENCEMENT AND FORM OF BENEFIT




---



##### 



VESTING
 SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
 COST OF PLAN
   2




---



##### 



LIMITATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS RIGHTS
    PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE
   3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



INDEPENDENCE OF BENEFITS
 LEGAL FEES
 5




---



##### 



NON-ALIENATION OF BENEFITS
 RIGHT TO AMEND OR TERMINATE PLAN
     CONSTRUCTION AND GOVERNING LAW
       6




---



##### 



CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.By:Benjamin W. LairdTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Compensation and HumanResource Committee
 7




---



##### 



PARTICIPANTWilliam R. Hartman
 8
Case 1:07-cr-00338-WHP Document 14 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cr-00338-WHP Document 14 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### POWELL v. DUKE UNIVERSITY

No. 66.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 736.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1973. Motion of defendants to dismiss appeal allowed 2 October 1973.
#### STATE v. HOOD

No. 173 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 404.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1977.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL L. SCOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2553

[November 1, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ari Abraham Porth, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-5333CF10A.

Michael L. Scott, Moore Haven, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
INTERGRAPH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                
              EXHIBIT 11 ---- COMPUTATIONS OF LOSS PER SHARE
                                

Year ended December 31,                    1996          1995          1994
------------------------------------  ------------- ------------- -------------

Primary:
 Weighted average common shares 
  outstanding                           47,195,000    46,077,000    44,860,000
 Net common shares issuable
  on exercise of certain 
  stock options (1)                            ---           ---           ---
                                      ------------- ------------- -------------

 Average common and equivalent
   common shares outstanding            47,195,000    46,077,000    44,860,000
                                      ============= ============= =============

 Net loss                             $(69,112,000) $(45,348,000) $(70,220,000)
                                      ============= ============= ============= 

 Net loss per share                         $(1.46)       $( .98)       $(1.56)
                                      ============= ============= =============

Fully diluted:
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                           47,195,000    46,077,000     44,860,000
 Net common shares issuable
  on exercise of certain 
  stock options (1)                            ---           ---           ---
                                      ------------- ------------- -------------

 Average common and equivalent
  common shares outstanding             47,195,000    46,077,000    44,860,000
                                      ============= ============= =============

 Net loss                             $(69,112,000) $(45,348,000) $(70,220,000)
                                      ============= ============= =============

 Net loss per share                         $(1.46)       $( .98)       $(1.56)
                                      ============= ============= =============




(1) Net  common  shares issuable on exercise of  certain  stock
    options is calculated based on the treasury stock method  using
    the  average market price for the primary calculation  and  the
    ending market price, if higher than the average, for the  fully
    diluted calculation.
#### HARDY v. TOLER

No. 51 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 625.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 6 May 1975.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 14 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CALVIN LEE STRONG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES E. SIMMONS, Secretary of

Corrections, El Dorado, Kansas;

MICHAEL A. NELSON, Warden, El

Dorado Correctional Facility; (FNU)

Woods, Unit Team, El Dorado

Correctional Facility,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-3145

(District of Kansas)

(D.C. No. 99-3123-KHV)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Calvin Lee Strong, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

defendant prison officials on Strong’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit. In his

complaint, Strong asserted that the defendants, while acting under the color of

state law, had deprived him of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth,

Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In a thorough and well-stated

Memorandum and Order, the district court closely examined each of Strong’s 

claims and concluded that those claims either completely lacked evidentiary

support or failed as a matter of law.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, asking whether

the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This court’s de novo review of the district court’s

Memorandum and Order, the parties’ briefs and contentions, and the entire record

on appeal reveals no reversible error. Accordingly, we exercise jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of the defendants for substantially those reasons set out in the
-3-

district court’s Memorandum and Order dated May 1, 2000. Strong’s motion to

supplement the appellate record with irrelevant materials relating to a nowdismissed judicial conduct complaint is DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT:

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.28 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery