alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 3 to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 
 XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment to the
Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Amendment”) is made on March 9, 2009 effective as of the time provided below. 
 WHEREAS, Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously adopted the Xerium Technologies, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, Section 10(d) of the Plan gives Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) the power to amend the Plan or any portion thereof at any time, subject to such shareholder approval as
the Board determines to be necessary or advisable; 
 WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to increase the limit on the number of shares of
Common Stock that may be granted as Stock Awards as set out in Section 5(c) for 2009 to accommodate the Stock Awards slated to be made to Stephen Light in 2009 under the terms of the 2008 Management Incentive Compensation Program and his
employment agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of such time as the Amendment is approved by the stockholders of the
Company: 
 Section 5(c) of the Plan is amended by adding the following phrase at the end of that section: 
 “provided, however, that the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be granted as Stock Awards pursuant to Section 8 to the
Company’s Chief Executive Officer in 2009 shall not exceed 2,302,178, subject to adjustment under subsection (b).” 
 Except as expressly amended
hereby, all provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 The Amendment shall have no effect until such time as it is approved by the
stock holders of the Company. 
 The provisions of the Amendment shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.
[File No. 5924.]

#### PAUL LUTZ and Alma Lutz, Respondents, v. JAMES A. COFFEY and Josephine A. Coffey, et al. JAMES A. COFFEY and Josephine A. Coffey, Appellants.

(238 N. W. 31.)

*114Opinion filed June 15, 1931.

*Coffey & Btrutz,*for appellants.

*A. W. Aylmer*and *Carr & Biltgers,*for respondents.

*115Burnt, J.

This is one of three cases between these same parties argued at tbe same time, and is known as case number two. It involves tbe foreclosure of a second mortgage on tbe land involved in case number one, being tbe case where tbe opinion of this court was written by Judge Birdzell, ante, 105, 237 N. W. 783.

There are three main issues to be determined — tbe legality of tbe power of attorney given for foreclosure purposes; tbe effectiveness of tbe notice before foreclosure; and the.amount of interest charged after tbe maturity of the debt.

Tbe legality of a similar power of attorney is determined in case number one, and tbe decision rendered therein controls here. Tbe power of attorney issued in this case is sufficient.

Objections to tbe notice before foreclosure and its service, similar to those urged herein, are discussed in case number three, where tbe opinion of this court was written by Judge Burke, post, 433, 238 N. W. 29. Tbe facts are practically identical and tbe rules announced therein are determinative here.

Tbe issue as to excessive interest arises from tbe fact that tbe note and mortgage provide for interest at eight per cent payable annually until maturity, and nine per cent 'per annum after maturity. Tbe note and mortgage were executed November 24, 1920, and consequently after chapter 166 of tbe Session Laws of 1919, being § 6072a of the Supp., came into force. This statute says: “Tbe rate of interest on all indebtedness hereafter incurred shall be tbe same after maturity as before maturity, and any contract attempting to make tbe rate of interest higher after maturity shall be void as to such increase of interest.”

Respondents say tbe question of excessive rate of interest is not raised by tbe pleadings, and did not become an issue in tbe trial court; that there is nothing in the answer which specifically pleads this as a defense. However tbe complaint set forth tbe note and mortgage and alleges this extra interest is due. Tbe answer contains a general denial of allegations not admitted or explained and therefore denies that this extra interest is due. Tbe appellants demand a review of tbe entire case in this court. Tbe respondents say in their brief in this court, that “these pláintiffs are not asking for, nor do they want anything more than they are legally entitled to.” Because of no arguments there*116on in tbe lower court they inadvertently overlooked tbe provision of tbe statute quoted and computed interest as set forth in tbe note. It being-conceded tbe increased rate contracted for after maturity is void, and that this amounts to $138.80, tbe judgment should be reduced in this, amount and with such reduction in amount tbe judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Oi-ibistiaNSON, Cb. J\, and Nuessle, Biedzell and Bueee, JJ.,, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001010551
<NAME> TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            24,446
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         779
<MORTGAGE>                                       1,005
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      157
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  29,364
<CASH>                                             106
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               9,714
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             426
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,779
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 31,177
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              3,554
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,828
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  1,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,779
<PREMIUMS>                                       6,028
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,656
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  18
<OTHER-INCOME>                                      40
<BENEFITS>                                       5,282
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        906
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             1,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    487
<INCOME-TAX>                                        96
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  15,213
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              4,839
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                  192
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                               1,858
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 3,199
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 30,969
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                            (1)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 12/31/99
     BALANCE SHEETS AND  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               274
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     10,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                         117
<INVENTORY>                                       52,641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  65,373
<PP&E>                                            40,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   124,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              8,624
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          54,491
<OTHER-SE>                                           (38)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     124,099
<SALES>                                           40,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  40,366
<CGS>                                             21,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     22,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  10,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    6,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                       2,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                3,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       3,609
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.18



</TABLE>
# States in the Senate | Maryland Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. The state legislature failed to elect a candidate to fill the term before it adjourned, so the governor appointed Smith to fill the seat on Mar. 4, 1809. Smith asked the Senate to clarify his status—whether his credentials extended through the regular session of the Senate scheduled to begin on May 22, 1809, or if they terminated once the state legislature met again on June 5, 1809. The Senate decided that Smith would retain his seat during the session of the legislature, unless the assembly named a successor during that session. Smith was reelected by the state legislature on Nov. 16, 1809.

 2. Vacancy from Mar. 4, 1815, to Jan. 28, 1816, because of failure of legislature to elect.

 3. Hindman was elected in 1800 to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of James Lloyd; at expiration of the term he was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the failure of the legislature to elect his successor and served from December 12, 1800, to November 19, 1801; he was not a candidate for reelection.

 4. Phillip F. Thomas was elected but was not permitted to qualify.  Vacancy from Mar. 4, 1867, to Mar. 6, 1868.

 5. Died Feb. 24, 1891. Had been reelected on Jan. 15, 1890, for the term beginning Mar. 4, 1891.

 6. Vacancy from Feb. 25 to Nov. 18, 1891, because of recess of legislature.

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00232-CR

Pedro Avalos Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-05-12,011

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 24, 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0133

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLES ANDREW DRURY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 27, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 24 2021

11/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0133
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC17-1179

____________

ANTHONY LAMARCA, 

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[January 30, 2018]

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Anthony Lamarca’s appeal of the circuit court’s order 

denying Lamarca’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. 

Lamarca’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on 

remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 

2161 (2017). This Court stayed Lamarca’s appeal pending the disposition of 

Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). 
- 2 -

After this Court decided Hitchcock, Lamarca responded to this Court’s order to 

show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.

After reviewing Lamarca’s response to the order to show cause, as well as 

the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that Lamarca is not entitled to relief. 

Lamarca was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a 

vote of eleven to one. LaMarca v. State, 785 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 2001). 

Lamarca’s sentence of death became final in 2001. LaMarca v. Florida, 534 U.S. 

925 (2001). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to Lamarca’s sentence of 

death. See Hitchcock, 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of 

Lamarca’s motion.

The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by Lamarca, we 

caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is so 

ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion.

LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result.

PARIENTE, J., concurring in result.

I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchcock 

v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now 

final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting 

opinion in Hitchcock.
- 3 -

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, 

Nancy Moate Ley, Judge - Case No. 52199502070XXXXNO

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida; James Vincent 

Viggiano, Jr., Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, and Ali A. Shakoor, Assistant 

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, Middle Region, Temple Terrace, Florida, 

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Scott A. Browne, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,

for Appellee
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOTPED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the
Report) of Telemetrix inc. (the Company) for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2005, I, William Becker, Director
(Principal Executive and Accounting Officer) of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 condion and results of operations of the Company.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  January
23, 2006

| | /s/
William BeckerName: William BeckerTitle: Director
   (Principal Executive and Accounting Officer)
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# States in the Senate | Idaho Senators

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

 1. Appointed to fill the remainder of the term expiring Mar. 3, 1921 having been elected to the term beginning Mar. 3, 1921.

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States
#### Scott G. Boyce, Respondent, v. Warren D. Walker and Mary E. Walker, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 17, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130248 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, GERALD MACARTHUR and VIVIAN Justices 

MACARTHUR,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 130248 

 COA: 265462 
 Alpena CC: 02-003190-CZ 

SANFORD LINDLE, JEANNE LINDLE,

and LAKE STATE RAILROAD CO., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0510 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 17, 2006 

Clerk
Exhibit 11


                             CityFed Financial Corp.
              Statement Regarding the Computation of Per Share Loss



                                                          Six Months Ended
                                                          ----------------
                                                              June 30,
                                                              --------

                                                       2002             2001
                                                       ----             ----
 Computation of Loss Per Share:


Weighted average number of shares outstanding        18,716,134      18,715,609

Loss applicable to common stock:1

  Net loss                                         $ (4,352,000)   $ (4,313,000)
                                                   ============    ============

Basic and diluted loss per share:

  Net loss                                         $      (0.23)   $      (0.23)
                                                   ============    ============









--------
1 Losses applicable to Common Stock include unpaid preferred stock dividends for
the three  months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001 in the amount of  $4,316,900  and
$4,317,200 respectively.
# William B. Giles: A Featured Biography

**

----

Senator William Branch Giles of Virginia was 42 years old when he entered the Senate in 1804, having already served ten years in the House of Representatives. As a Representative during the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, Giles was a leading Republican opponent of the Federalist administrations’ policies, criticizing Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s financial program as well as the Jay Treaty and the Alien and Sedition Acts. In the Senate, with Republicans in the majority, Giles continued to be a leader and a skilled debater. Giles led a faction of the party that was critical of President James Madison’s administration, successfully blocking the president’s nomination of Albert Gallatin to be secretary of state and urging preparedness for a possible war with Great Britain. As chairman of a committee appointed to respond to President Madison’s military proposals in 1810, Giles advocated increasing American naval armaments as well expanding the size of the army. Giles claimed that he did not want war, but stressed the need to be prepared in case war came. 

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.