alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION www.edgaradvantage.com




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

MEMORANDUM    
  



	TO:	 	BOARD OF DIRECTORS
	

FROM:	
 	

MANAGEMENT
	

DATE:	
 	

DECEMBER 22, 2000
	

RE:	
 	

RECOMMENDED STOCK OPTION GRANT POLICY FOR COMPANY





    All
optionees currently engaged by the Company or any of its subsidiaries (excluding optionees engaged by Unity Wireless Singapore) shall be given the opportunity to rescind all, but
not less than all, of their options, vested or otherwise, in return for a grant of options pursuant to the policies described in this memorandum. Any decision to rescind must be made in writing no
later than Friday, December 29, 2000. 


    Unless
otherwise specified herein, all options granted henceforth shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the 1999 Stock Option Plan (the "99 Plan") of the Company and
the following terms and conditions: 



	•
	vesting
schedule: in equal quarterly amounts over three years



	•
	term:
five years from date of grant



	•
	exercise
price: fair market value on date of grant



	•
	a
quarterly vesting shall take place at the end of a quarter only if the optionee has worked for the Company or one its subsidiaries for more than
one-half of the quarter 




A.  Directors  



	•	 	chairman	 	200,000 initial grant of options
	•	 	director	 	75,000 initial grant of options
	•	 	member of compensation committee	 	5,000 initial grant of options
	•	 	member of audit committee	 	5,000 initial grant of options
	•	 	member of options committee	 	2,500 initial grant of options






    It
is recommended that board members commit to minimum of six meetings per year, in person or by telephone. 


B.  Senior Management  



	•	 	president and chief executive officer	 	200,000 initial grant of options*
	•	 	chief financial officer	 	200,000 initial grant of options*
	•	 	senior vice president	 	200,000 initial grant of options*
	•	 	vice president, business development	 	200,000 initial grant of options*






    *One-half
to vest immediately upon grant, with the balance to vest over three years in equal quarterly amounts. 


C.  Board of Technical Advisors  



	•	 	chairman	 	75,000 initial grant of options
	•	 	member	 	50,000 initial grant of options






    It
is recommended that board members commit to minimum of six meetings per year, in person or by telephone. 





 

D.  Board of Business Advisors  



	•	 	member	 	10,000 initial grant of options






    It
is recommended that board members commit to making themselves available for advice to the Company upon reasonable notice from management. 


E.  Ultratech Employees  


    Management recommends that these optionees be entitled to rescind, in return for that number of options equal to 100% of the aggregate amount of their options. 



F.  Existing Employees of the Company and its Subsidiaries  


    Management recommends that these optionees be entitled to rescind, in return for that number of options equal to 50% of the aggregate amount of their options. 


2









QuickLinks


MEMORANDUM
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Bray and Overton Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

SHARON B. LANG MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1491-96-1 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON FEBRUARY 11, 1997 JAMES A. LANG

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Morris B. Gutterman, Judge Designate Moody E. Stallings (Kevin E. Martin-Gayle; Stallings & Richardson, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Lorin D. Hay for appellee.

Sharon B. Lang (wife) appeals the ruling of the trial court awarding her one-half of James A. Lang's (husband) taxable retirement income. For the reasons stated, we reverse and

remand. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. Prior to divorce, husband and wife reached an agreement on spousal support, which was incorporated into the final divorce decree. The agreement called for husband to pay wife $1,000 per month, and for wife to receive, "when the husband elects to receive the same and does, in fact, commence receiving the same,

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - fifty percent of twenty years worth of creditable military retirement pay . . . ." At the time of the final decree, husband was on active duty in the United States Navy. Before husband could retire, he was found unfit for service and was medically retired. He began receiving a combination of disability compensation in the amount of $2,017 and taxable retirement income of $427, totalling $2,444. Wife initiated an action to determine the proper amount of support she was to

receive. The judge ruled that the creditable military retirement pay totalled $427, and that wife was to receive half of that amount. We disagree. The agreement allowed wife half of "twenty years worth of creditable military retirement pay," when and if husband begins receiving it. We find that husband is not receiving twenty years of retirement pay, but rather an abbreviated retirement pay due to his disability compensation. Because the triggering event has not occurred, the spousal support agreed upon was not modified. Husband therefore continues to be obligated to wife for $1,000 per month.

We reverse and remand with instructions to enter an award not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 14, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-636

Lower Tribunal No. 13-19836

________________



### Kidde Fire Trainers, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation

, Petitioner,

vs.



### Kevin Eddie McCrea, Chaunte T. McCrea, his wife, and Terry

Maley

, Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Samantha Ruiz-Cohen

, Judge.

Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., and Stuart A. Weinstein

(Boca Raton)

, for petitioner and respondent Terry Maley.

Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten; Dolan,

Dobrinsky & Rosenblum, LLP, and Daniel D. Dolan, II and Eric Bluestein

, for

respondents Kevin Eddie McCrea and Chaunte T. McCrea.

Before ROTHENBERG, LOGUE, and LUCK, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.The primary issue we must address in reviewing this petition for writ of

certiorari filed by the defendant below, Kidde Fire Trainers, Inc. (“Kidde Fire”), is

whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by imposing

a particular sanction

— the waiver of Kidde Fire’s work-product privilege as to

numerous e-mails pertaining to Kidde Fire’s investigation and actions following an

incident involving plaintiff Kevin Eddie McCrea

— based on Kidde Fire’s, not

counsel’s, serious and intentional discovery violations relating to the e-mails. 1 As

there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the

discovery violations were intentional and because the sanction imposed by the trial

court was well within its discretion, we find no departure from the essential

requirements of law. See Ham v. Dunmire

, 891 So. 2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is

well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the

discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed

. . . absent an abuse of the

sound exercise of that discretion.”); Toll v. Korge

, 127 So. 3d 883, 886-87 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2013) (holding that a trial court’s determination of sanctions is committed to

1 A party seeking certiorari relief must demonstrate that the trial court’s order

“depart[s] from the essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable harm that

cannot be adequately remedied on final appeal.” Millennium Diagnostic Imaging

Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

, 129 So. 3d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013). The last two elements are often referred to as irreparable harm, see

Stockinger v. Zeilberger

, 152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), and “[t]he

establishment of irreparable harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari

jurisdiction.” Id. Kidde Fire has established the jurisdictional prerequisites to

certiorari relief.

2the trial court’s discretion). We, therefore, deny Kidde Fire’s petition for writ of

certiorari.

Denied.

3
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of NBC
Capital Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Name:

Lewis F. Mallory, Jr.Title:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
OfficerDate:

August 6, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NBC Capital Corporation and will be retained by NBC Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                          <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               235,920 
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,732
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,655
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,381 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   329,349
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,125
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,582
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,345)      
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,345)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0






</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7387

JERRY EUGENE COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-04-305-7) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 23, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Eugene Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Eugene Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 15, 2004 . The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 20, 2004. Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2031 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2031

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit the issuance 
  of a certificate for subminimum wages for individuals with impaired 
                          vision or blindness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2000

   Mr. Dodd introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit the issuance 
  of a certificate for subminimum wages for individuals with impaired 
                          vision or blindness.

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

SECTION 1. EMPLOYEES WITH IMPAIRED VISION OR BLINDNESS.

    Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
214(c)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as 
        paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
    ``(2) The Secretary shall not issue a certificate under paragraph 
(1) to authorize the payment of wages under subparagraph (A) of such 
paragraph to any individual by reason of such individual's impaired 
vision or blindness. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `impaired 
vision or blindness' means--
            ``(A) any limitation in visual acuity or visual field, 
        including blindness; or
            ``(B) blindness as determined by visual acuity which is no 
        better than 20/200 in the better eye with corrected lenses or 
        visual acuity which, if better than 20/200, is accompanied by a 
        limit to the field of vision in the better eye to such a degree 
        that its widest diameter subtends an angle of no greater than 
        20 degrees.''.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment to The PBSJ Corp 2008 Employee Stock Ownership & Direct Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 THE PBSJ CORPORATION 2008 EMPLOYEE 
 STOCK OWNERSHIP AND DIRECT PURCHASE PLAN 
 This Amendment to The Amended and Restated The PBSJ Corporation 2008 Employee Stock Ownership and Direct Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) is made on this      day of May, 2009, by The PBSJ Corporation,
a Florida corporation (the “Company”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan to grant stock ownership rights to its eligible employees; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has authorized and approved the amendments to the Plan contained herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May     , 2009: 
 1. Paragraph (a) of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(a) “Current Stock Value” means the “fair market value” of a Share as determined by the most
recently completed independent appraisal of the Shares, subject to applicable law and in accordance with Company’s Bylaws, as amended from time to time.” 
 2. Section 9 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “9. Repurchase of Shares Acquired by Exercise of Stock Ownership Rights. If offered for sale or required to be sold, Shares shall be sold and purchased in accordance with the Company Bylaws.” 
 3. All other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain the same. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed effective as of the
day and year first above written. 
  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	THE PBSJ CORPORATION, a Florida corporation
		
	By:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,305
<PP&E>                                         451,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,493,028
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,261,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,882
<SALES>                                          9,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,393
<CGS>                                           28,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  203,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (459,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (459,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (459,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6323

RAYFORD KNIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 2530-L) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayford Knight, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for return of property. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Knight did not sign his notice of appeal. Instead, another inmate signed it. The notice of appeal signed by someone other than Knight did not confer jurisdiction on this court. See Covington v. Allsbrook , 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 10.59
 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO  STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 Amendment Option Agreement Company Optionee
 Exercisability . Section 3.a.
 a.
    
    The Option granted herein may be exercised in whole or in part,
to the extent then vested and subject to earlier termination as provided herein,
continuing to a date 10 years subsequent to the date hereof (the Expiration
Date). In the event the Option is exercised in full or in part prior to a
Change of Control of the Company, the Optionee agrees, as a condition to such
exercise, that he will, so as long as retains the title of Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, retain that number of after-tax shares received by him
from any such exercise which are equal in value to four (4) times Optionees
annual salary from the Company, valued as of the date of exercise of the Option;
provided, that such retention obligation shall terminate and no longer apply
upon a Change of Control or termination of employment without Cause or
resignation for Good Reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement) or a change
in Optionees title from that of Chief Executive Officer. Failure to comply
with this provision will result in Optionees forfeiture of the unvested portion
of the Option and ineligibility to participate in the Companys incentive
programs.
 Restatement of Option Agreement .
 Miscellaneous .
  Company:
    
    
    
    AMERICAN ECOLOGY CORPORATION:By:
    
    /s/ Kenneth C. LeungPrint Name:
    
    KENNETH C. LEUNGTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board of DirectorsOptionee:
    
    
    
    /s/ Stephen Anthony RomanoSTEPHEN A. ROMANO
EXHIBIT
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Metropolitan Health Networks,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
M. Earley, Chief Executive Officer of Metropolitan, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  (1)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  (2)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Metropolitan.
  /s/ MICHAEL M. EARLEYMichael
      M. EarleyChief
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      24, 2009