alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5(b)






EXHIBIT 10.5(b)




BANCORP RHODE ISLAND, INC.




THIRD AMENDMENT TO



NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN



WHEREAS, Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. (the “Company”) desires to amend the provisions of the
Company’s Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan (the “Plan”) to reflect an increase in the maximum
number of Common Shares for which options may be granted under the Plan; and



WHEREAS, under Section 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company, may amend the
Plan to increase the maximum number of Common Shares for which options may be granted under the
Plan, provided that such amendment shall not become effective until the approval of the
shareholders; and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and shareholders of the Company have each approved the
amendment to increase the maximum number of Common Shares for which options may be granted under
the Plan;



NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:



1. That Section 5(b) of the Plan be amended by substituting the number “115,000” for “90,000”
in the first sentence thereof to increase the maximum number of Common Shares for which options may
be granted under the Plan.



2. All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby
ratified, approved and confirmed.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the Non-Employee Directors Plan
to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 20th day of May, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BANCORP RHODE ISLAND, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	Merrill W. Sherman
 	 
	 	 	Merrill W. Sherman 	 
	 	 	President and CEO 	 
	 




Attest:



	 	 	 
	Margaret D. Farrell
	 	 
	Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PENDARIES PETROLEUM LTD. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED June 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,499
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3
<ALLOWANCES>                                   222
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,723
<PP&E>                                         23,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (96)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          21
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       32,931
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,727)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,225
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               60
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)





</TABLE>
altair_10q-ex1001.htm




Exhibit 10.1










	
Date:
	
March 9, 2007









	
To:
	
Altairnano Management Team









	
From:
	
Alan J. Gotcher









	
Subject:
	
Altairnano 2007 Incentive Plan
















The Board has approved the Altairnano 2007 Company Incentive Plan, which defines two groups of employees; the company performance targets and plan pay out against performance:







	 	
·
	
The Company Performance target is comprised of two financial components:




 



	
§
	
Cash at Year End:
	
$13.0 M
	
 75% weight

	
§
	
Total Revenue:
	
$16.5 M
	
 25% weight

	  	  	  	  




 

 


	 	
·
	
There are two groups of employees in the plan.  Each group has its own incentive targets:







	 	
§
	
Employees at Levels 2 to 8 have 50% of Incentive Bonus based on Company Performance and 50% on Individual Performance; the Incentive Multiplier is capped at 150% for Company Performance and 110% for Individual Performance.







	 	
§
	
Employees at Levels 9 to 13 (including executive officers) have 100% of Incentive Bonus based on Company Performance; the Incentive Multiplier is capped at 150% of Company Performance.










	
  
	
·
	
Incentive Plan payout is based on performance versus variable Incentive Multiplier payout:










 



 



  



  







  













Example 1. Company Performance is near Plan


	  	  	  	
%
	
   %

	
Criteria
	
Objective
	
Actual
	
Performance
	
Payout

	  	  	  	  	  
	
Cash at Year End
	
$13.0 million
	
$13.5 million
	
104%
	
128%

	
Revenue
	
$16.5 million
	
$16.5 million
	
100%
	
120%








Company Performance Incentive Bonus Payout = .75 X 104 + .25 X 100 = 103%

Payout = 126%





An employee at Level 2-8 with 100% Individual Performance would receive:

       50% Incentive Bonus = Company Performance = 126% X .5 = 63% of target bonus

       50% Incentive Bonus = Individual Performance = 100% X .5 = 50% of target bonus

       If Target Bonus is 15%, then Total Bonus = 17% of salary





An employee at Level 9-13 would earn 126% of their Target Bonus









Example 2. Company Performance is above Plan






	  	  	  	
%
	
   %

	
Criteria
	
Objective
	
Actual
	
Performance
	
Payout

	  	  	  	  	  
	
Cash at Year End
	
$13.0 million
	
$15.0 million
	
115%
	
150%

	
Revenue
	
$16.5 million
	
$20.0 million
	
121%
	
162%








Company Performance Incentive Bonus Payout = .75 X 115 + .25 X 121 = 116.5%

Payout   =   153%





An employee at Level 2-8 with 100% Individual Performance would receive:

       50% Incentive Bonus = Company Performance = 153% X .5 = 76.5% of target bonus

       50% Incentive Bonus = Individual Performance = 100% X .5 = 50% of target bonus

       If Target Bonus is 15%, the Total Bonus = 19% of salary





An employee at Level 9-13 would earn 153% of their Target Bonus









Altairnano Senior Executive 2007 Incentive Plan Targets






	
Altairnano Executive
	
Target Bonus

	  	  
	
Steve Balogh
	
$114,000.00

	
Ed Dickinson
	
$114,000.00

	
Alan Gotcher
	
$288,000.00

	
Bruce Sabacky
	
$114,000.00
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SteelCloud, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kevin Murphy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of the Company for  the periods presented
therein.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|September 13, 2005 |  | By: /s/ Kevin MurphyName: Kevin MurphyTitle: Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), the undersigned
sole director of S Wind-up Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter year ended March 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Periodic Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic
Report and results of operations for the Company for periods covered by the Periodic Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    IRV LICHTENWALDName:

Irv LichtenwaldTitle:

DirectorDated:

May 6, 2005




A signed original of the written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to S Wind-up Corporation (the Company) and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request. This certification
accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to**

**Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Exchange Act**

 

I, Randall J. Frapart,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof HyperFeed Technologies, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: August 4, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Randall J. Frapart  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Randall J. Frapart      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
SCWC-15-0000759

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GJ WILLIANDER,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000759; CR. NO. 14-1-1212)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant GJ Williander’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on August 2, 2017, is

hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

held, subject to further order of this court. Any party may,

within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules

of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 30, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000759

30-AUG-2017

08:01 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AT APRIL 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED
APRIL 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          79,358
<SECURITIES>                                    16,015
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                       904
<INVENTORY>                                     72,895
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,266
<PP&E>                                         417,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 525,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,475
<BONDS>                                        421,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (134,411)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   525,075
<SALES>                                        249,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,392
<CGS>                                          223,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  223,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,100)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (21,477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,377
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,377
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5181 Filed: 12/20/19 Entered: 12/20/19 11:12:06 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5181 Filed: 12/20/19 Entered: 12/20/19 11:12:06 Page 2 of

2
SCPW-13-0000100
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

CHRIS GRINDLING, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CARDOZA, JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0007)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )

Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher Grindling’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on February 19, 2013, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. See HRPP 40(f) and (i). Although petitioner is entitled to a timely ruling on his Rule 40 petition, he is not entitled to the mandamus relief requested at this time. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000100 04-MAR-2013 09:24 AMof alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or

obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 4, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
#### Samuel *W.*Smith, plaintiff in error *vs.*R. R. Brown, defendant in error.

(Montgomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this case.)

Where, at the judgment term, an order was granted by the Court, allowing the defendant ten days, within which to make a motion for a new trial at Chambers, and the plaintiff and defendant failed to agree upon *571the evidence, and no application was made to the Judge within the time limited to sanction the brief of the evidence, or to make the motion for a new trial in pursuance with the order, an affidavit of illegality setting up that the motion for a new trial was still pending, was properly dismissed. (R.)

New trial. Illegality. Before Judge Clark. Schley Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

W. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error. ■

Fort & Hollis, by Dupont Guerry, for plaintiff in error.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the Court below on an affidavit of illegality to an execution. The Court dismissed the defendant’s affidavit of illegality, to which he excepted. At the term of the Court at which the judgment against the defendant was rendered, on which the execution issued, an order was granted by the Court, on motion of defendant, (the plaintiff’s counsel being absent,) allowing him ten days to make a motion for a new trial at Chambers. The counsel for plaintiff and defendant failed to agree to a brief of the evidence in the case, and no application was made to the Judge within ted days, to sanction a brief of evidence, or to make the motion for a new trial, in pursuance of the order granted, and the execution issued. In fact, there does not appear to have been any motion for a new trial made in the case, or any *supersedeas*granted by the Court to stay the execution. In our judgment, the grounds of illegality to the execution were insufficient, and there was no error in dismissing the same.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
#### The Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. The American and Waltham Watch Company, Respondent.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per CuHam.*
#### STATE v. TOMMIE POWELL.

(Filed 4 November, 1953.)

Criminal Law § 77b—

The rule requiring a narrative statement *of*the evidence in the case on appeal is mandatory and may not be waived by the parties, and a record containing in an “agreed statement of facts” a mere summary of the evidence. largely in the form of conclusions, is not a compliance with the rule and requires a dismissal of the appeal, and a statement of the evidence in question and answer form in the brief does not alter this result.

Appeal by defendant from *Harris, J.,*and a jury, at April Term, 1953, of Duplin.

Criminal prosecution tried on appeal from General County Court upon a warrant charging tbe defendant with (1) possession of nontax-paid whiskey, and (2) possession of nontax-paid whiskey for tbe purpose of sale.

Tbe jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from judgment pronounced tbe defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Gerald F. White, Member of Staff, for the State.*

*Latham A. Wilson for defendant, appellant.*

JoimsoN, J.

Tbe Attorney-General moves to affirm tbe judgment and dismiss tbe appeal for failure to include in tbe case on appeal a narrative statement of tbe evidence as required by Rule 19 (4), Rules of Practice in'the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, p. 556.

Tbis Rule requires that tbe evidence “shall be in narrative form, ’and not by question and answer, except that a question and answer, or a series of them, may be set out when tbe subject of a particular exception.” The Rule further provides that “If tbe case is settled by agreement of counsel, or tbe statement of tbe appellant becomes the case on appeal, and tbe rule is not complied with, . . . tbe appeal will be dismissed.” Tbis Rule is mandatory, and may not be waived by tbe parties. *Bank v. Fries,*162 N.C. 516, *77*S.E. 678; *Anderson v. Heating Co., ante,*138, 76 S.E. 2d 458. See also *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126; *In re De Febio,*237 N.C. 269, 74 S.E. 2d 531.

*551Here the record contains .a statement labeled “Agreed Statement of Facts,” which summarizes — largely in the form of conclusions — what transpired in the trial of the case, but nowhere in the record do we find anything that approximates a narrative statement of the evidence in the ease as required by Eule 19 (4). Instead, the defendant has included in his brief, as an appendix thereto, all the evidence, in quéstion and answer form. This does not meet the requirements of the Eule. The motion of the Attorney-General will be allowed, and it is so ordered.

But while reaching this conclusion, the entire record has been read and considered, as has the evidence brought forward in the brief, and no substantial merit is found in any of the defendant’s assignments of error.

Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.