alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS 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 of Don Marcos Trading Co. (the Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Earl T. Shannon, President, and Scott W. Bodenweber, Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 14, 2010





/s/ Earl T. Shannon


Earl T. Shannon,


President





/s/ Scott W. Bodenweber


Scott W. Bodenweber,


Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rodrick Dow d/b/a Rodrick Dow PC

Appellate case number: 01-13-00806-CV

Trial court case number: 977557

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

This is an appeal from a judgment signed on August 22, 2013. Appellant filed his notice 

of appeal on September 17, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The record was due on October 21, 

2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 35.1. The clerk’s record was filed on September 30, 2013. 

The reporter’s record has not been filed.

On October 30, 2013, the Clerk notified appellant that the court reporter responsible for 

preparing the record in this appeal had informed the Court that appellant had not requested 

preparation of the record or had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. The 

Clerk further notified appellant that unless appellant provided proof of having made payment 

arrangements for the reporter’s record, or a response showing that he was exempt from paying 

for the reporter’s record by December 2, 2013, the Court may consider and decide only those 

issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

Appellant has not provided the Court with evidence showing that he has paid or made 

arrangements to pay the court reporter. Accordingly, the Court will consider and decide those 

issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See id.

On December 4, 2013, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s 

brief. However, appellant’s brief is not yet due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant’s 

motion is dismissed as moot.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days from the date of 

this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, must be filed within 30 days 

after the date appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 12, 2013
#### FLOYD BREECE v. ASHEVILLE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.

(Filed 3 November, 1937.)

Food § 16—

Evidence that plaintiff was injured by slivers of glass in a soft drink bottled by defendant, and that foreign and deleterious substances were found in other drinks bottled by defendant at about the same time, is sufficient to take the case to the jury on the issue of negligence.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnston, J.,*at June Term, 1937, of BuEKE.

Action to recover damages for alleged actionable negligence.

Plaintiff alleged and offered evidence tending to show that on 3 December, 1936, he purchased a bottle of coca-cola from the Dixie Stores in Valdese, North Carolina, which contained chips of glass; that he inadvertently swallowed the glass and suffered injury therefrom; that the bottle of coca-cola was manufactured in and sold by the plant of the defendant in Hickory, and that about the same time in other bottles of coca-cola manufactured in and sold by the said plant of the defendant for human consumption there were found by other purchasers deleterious and foreign substances.

Defendant denied negligence and pleaded in defense and offered evidence tending to show that its plant in Hickory is equipped with machinery and appliances such as are modern, approved and in general use for washing and sterilizing bottles and bottling of coca-cola, and that in the bottling of coca-cola it had exercised reasonable care and prudence to free the product from deleterious and foreign substances.

The jury answered the issues against the defendant.

From judgment on verdict defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and assigned error.

*Ervin & Butler for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Mull & Patton for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Curiam.

A careful consideration of the case on appeal fails to disclose error. The case was properly submitted to the jury and appears to have been tried in full compliance with settled rules of law in this State governing such cases. *Enloe v. Bottling Co.,*208 N. C., 305, 180 S. E., 582, and cases therein cited. *Blackwell v. Bottling Co.,*211 N. C., 729.

*We*find

No error.
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Description of Fiscal 2010 Annual Incentive Plan




          On May 14, 2009, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Black Box Corporation (the “Company”) recommended that the Board approve, and the Board
approved, an annual incentive bonus plan (the “FY10 Annual Incentive Plan”) under the Black Box
Corporation 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2008 Plan”) for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2010 (“Fiscal 2010”). The performance goals for the FY10 Annual Incentive Plan are, as defined
below, “operating earnings per share,” “adjusted operating margin percent,” “adjusted EBITDA” and
“DSOs.” “Operating earnings per share” means “operating net income” divided by weighted average
common shares outstanding (diluted) with “operating net income” meaning net income plus
“Reconciling Items” (as defined below); “adjusted operating margin percent” means operating income
plus Reconciling Items divided by total revenues; “adjusted EBITDA” means EBITDA (net income
before provision for income taxes plus interest, depreciation and amortization) plus Reconciling
Items; and “DSOs” is an internal management calculation based on the balances in net accounts
receivable, costs in excess of billings and billings in excess of costs at the end of the
measurement period. “Reconciling Items” means employee severance costs, amortization of intangible
assets on acquisitions, stock-based compensation expense, asset write-up depreciation expense on
acquisitions, costs and expenses associated with the historical stock option granting practices
investigation and related matters and certain other identified legal matters, the change in fair
value of the interest-rate swap, pension plan funding expenses, the impact of current audits by the
Internal Revenue Service and the impact of any goodwill impairment.



          The performance goals for the FY10 Annual Incentive Plan will be equally weighted. Under the
FY10 Annual Incentive Plan, the achievement of the performance goals at 80% of target (90% of
target for the DSOs performance goal) will result in a payout of 50% of targeted annual bonus, the
achievement of the performance goals at 100% of target will result in a payout of 100% of targeted
annual bonus and the achievement of the performance goals at 120% of target (110% of target for the
DSOs performance goal) will result in a payout of 150% of targeted annual bonus. Following Board
review and approval, the Committee made targeted annual bonus awards under the FY10 Annual
Incentive Plan to the Company’s executive officers as follows: R. Terry Blakemore, President and
Chief Executive Officer — 100% of base salary or $550,000; Michael McAndrew, Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary — 80% of base salary or $252,000; and Francis W.
Wertheimber, Senior Vice President — 50% of base salary or $132,500.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-41507

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIAM HALL, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JERRY PETERSON, Deputy Director;

GARY J. GOMEZ, Director; DOYLE 

MCELVANEY, Warden; ENRIQUE FRANCO; 

GERNARDO RODRIGUEZ, JR.; CURTIS N.

WALTON, Lieutenant; ROGELIO G. 

MARTINEZ; BARBARA A. EASTMAN, 

Correctional Officer III,

Defendants-Appellees.

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CV-711

---------------------

May 31, 2000

Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Hall, Jr., Texas prisoner # 267649, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Hall argues that the

defendants denied his right of access to the courts, read his

legal papers on one occasion, retaliated against him by filing a
No. 99-41507 

- 2 -

false disciplinary report, and denied him due process at his

disciplinary proceeding. As a result of the alleged denial of

due process, Hall contends that he was punished and deprived of

his liberty, including the loss of 30 days of good-time credits. 

Hall also requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Hall’s complaint as frivolous. Based on Hall’s

factual allegations, he has not established any constitutional

claims cognizable under § 1983. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 351-52 (1996); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186 (5th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1052 (1999); Tighe v. Wall, 100

F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4

F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, this appeal is

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

Hall’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal is DENIED as moot.

The district court’s dismissal of Hall’s complaint and this

court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous count as two

“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Hall is CAUTIONED

that if he accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will

not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g). 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5459 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5459

     To authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to Henry Johnson.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2014

Mr. Tonko (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Grimm, Mr. 
   Rangel, Mr. Owens, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Richmond, Mr. 
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Gibson, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Rush, 
  Ms. Clarke of New York, and Mr. Collins of New York) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to Henry Johnson.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO HENRY 
              JOHNSON FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR I.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time 
limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 
who served in the Armed Forces, the President may award the Medal of 
Honor under section 3741 of such title to Henry Johnson for the acts of 
valor described in subsection (b).
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of Henry Johnson while serving as a 
member of Company C, 369th Infantry Regiment, 93rd Division, American 
Expeditionary Forces, during combat operations against the enemy on the 
front lines of the Western Front in France on May 15, 1918, during 
World War I for which he was previously awarded the Distinguished 
Service Cross.
                                 <all>
```
Unassociated Document


    PC
GROUP, INC.

    419
Park Avenue South

    New
York, NY 10016

    


    


    August 5,
2009

    


    Mr. W.
Gray Hudkins

    President
and Chief Executive Officer

    PC Group,
Inc.

    419 Park
Avenue South

    New York,
NY 10016

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Re:

            	
              Employment
      Agreement

            


    

    


    Dear
Gray:

    


    In recognition of your agreement to
forego $200,000 of the $300,000 base compensation for fiscal year 2009 to which
you are entitled under your Employment Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2007
(the “Employment Agreement”), between you and PC Group, Inc. (the “Company”),
this letter confirms the Company’s agreement to waive for 2009 the requirement
of Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement that you devote your “full business
time and energies to the business and affairs of the
Company”.  Instead, during 2009, you agree to devote such business
time and energies to the business and affairs of the Company as the Company and
you shall agree upon, from time to time, as necessary and
appropriate.  In all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.  This letter is made and executed and
shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the
conflicts of laws principles thereof.


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Sincerely,

    


    PC GROUP,
INC.

    


    


    


    By:  /s/ Kathleen P. Bloch    
Kathleen
P. Bloch
Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer
and Chief
Financial Officer


    AGREED
AND ACCEPTED:

    


    


    


    By: /s/ W. Gray Hudkins        

           W.
Gray Hudkins

    


    DATE:
August 5, 2009
EXHIBIT 10.20

XILINX, INC. 
AMENDMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

     THIS
AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of April 15, 2009, by and
between Xilinx, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Jon A. Olson
(the “Executive”). 

RECITALS 

     WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive previously entered into an employment agreement, dated June 2, 2005
and subsequently amended February 14, 2008 (as amended, the “Agreement”), which
sets forth various terms of the Executive’s employment as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company; 

     WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive now wish to amend the Agreement in order to provide for a reduction in
Executive’s base salary rate, effective May 1, 2009; and 

     WHEREAS, the terms of this amendment
have been approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Company; 

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree to amend the Agreement as set
forth below: 

AGREEMENT 

		1.		Base
      Salary. Effective May 1, 2009, the
      Executive’s base salary shall be $32,583.33 per month (equivalent to
      $391,000 per annum).
		 
	     	2.	     	Target Bonus and
      Employee Benefits. Notwithstanding the
      foregoing reduction in the Executive’s base salary rate, (a) the
      Executive’s annual target bonus rate shall remain equal to $345,000
      (equivalent to 75% of the Executive’s annual base salary rate of $460,000
      as in effect prior to this amendment), subject to achievement of target
      performance objectives, and (b) all employee benefits to which the
      Executive is entitled pursuant to the Agreement which are based in any
      manner upon the Executive’s base salary rate shall continue to be based
      upon the Executive’s base salary rate as in effect prior to this
      amendment.
		 
		3.		Continuation of
      Other Terms: Except as set forth
      herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in
      full force and effect.
		 
		4.		Acknowledgement. The Executive
      acknowledges and agrees that the reduction in his base salary rate
      pursuant to this amendment shall not constitute constructive discharge or
      “good reason” for resignation under any applicable law, plan, policy or
      agreement.
		 
		5.		Applicable
      Law: This amendment shall be governed
      by the laws of the State of California as such laws are applied to
      arrangement between California residents entered into and to be performed
      within the State of California.

 

	XILINX,
      INC.  	EXECUTIVE  
	  
	  
	  
	/s/ Kathleen E. Borneman  	 	/s/ Jon A. Olson  	 
	Kathleen E.
      Borneman  	Jon A.
      Olson  
	Corporate Vice
      President  	  
	Worldwide Human
      Resources
Exhibit 10.4


 


June 23, 2009


 


Santosh J. Vetticaden,
Ph.D., M.D.


 


Dear
Santosh,


 


As discussed, this letter
amends your November 12, 2008 offer letter, as amended by the April 13,
2009 amendment (collectively, the “offer letter”), as follows:  In the event of a change in control of
Cubist, you will not be required to repay any of the relocation expenses
covered by Cubist, including the relocation payment of $87,250 (and the
gross-up on taxes that arise from this payment) made to you in connection with
the April 13, 2009 amendment to your offer letter.   All of the other terms and provisions of
your offer letter remain in full force and effect.


 


	
  Sincerely,

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Michael W. Bonney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Michael W. Bonney

  	
   

  
	
  President and Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  



 


I acknowledge and agree
to the terms and conditions of this letter.


 


 


	
  Signed:

  	
  /s/ Santosh J.
  Vetticaden

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Santosh J. Vetticaden, Ph.D., M.D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7687

ANDREW BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MACK JARVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-867-5-F)

Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: September 13, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). Brown’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Brown that failure to

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Brown failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Brown has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We grant the motion to supplement the record and 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
Signed and Filed: October 23, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 24, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4457 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/24/19 08:12:51 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

SCHEDULE 1 

Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

610 Broadway, 6th Floor 

New York, NY 10012 

Centerbridge Partners, L.P., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

375 Park Avenue, 11th Floor 

New York, NY 10152 

Fidelity Management & Research Company, 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

245 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Silver Point Capital, L.P., 

on behalf of certain funds and accounts 

Two Greenwich Plaza 

Greenwich, CT 06830 

SteelMill Master Fund LP 

c/o PointState Capital LP 

40 West 57th Street, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4457 Filed: 10/23/19 Entered: 10/24/19 08:12:51 Page 2 of

2