alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-13773) pertaining to the Non-Plan      Option Grants, 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan and 1996      Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems    Corporation, |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-63967) pertaining to the 1996      Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems  Corporation, |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-82323) pertaining to the Auco,      Inc.  1994 Stock Option Plant and Non-Qualified Stock Awards and      Agreements of Peerless SystemsCorporation, |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-57362) pertaining to the 1996      Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems    Corporation, |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333- 73562) pertaining to the 1996      Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems  Corporation, |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-97265) pertaining to the 1996      Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Peerless Systems    Corporation, |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-111000) pertaining to the 1996      Equity Incentive Plan of Peerless Systems Corporation,  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 8) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-129401) pertaining to the 2005      Incentive Award Plan of Peerless Systems  Corporation; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1041

SYDNEY I. BRADSHAW,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF, CUMBERLAND COUNTY;

SUSAN TAYLOR, EDUCATION COORDINATOR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL;

DIANA SYKES; PIKE, CAPTAIN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY

CORRECTIONS OFFICER; CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL; HAROLD GILLMAN, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR

AT CUMBERLAND COUNTY JAIL; FRANCINE BRENTON,

Defendants, Appellees,

CINDY BABBS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY CORRECTIONS OFFICER,

Defendant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Circuit Judge,

Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Sydney Bradshaw on brief pro se.

John J. Wall, III and Monaghan Leahy, LLP on brief for

appellees.

July 25, 2001
Per Curiam. Sydney Bradshaw has appealed a

district court judgment dismissing his complaint. We have

reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. We

affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge's Recommended Decision, dated November 8, 2000, which

the district court accepted by order, dated November 30,

2000.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19618-19619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10877]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-1316-000]


TransAlta Enterprises Corporation; Notice of Filing

April 26, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 24, 1996, TransAlta Enterprises 
Corporation (TEN), tendered for filing supplemental information related 
to its petition for waivers and blanket approvals under various 
regulations of the Commission and for an order accepting its FERC 
Electric Rate Schedule No. 1. TEN requests that Rate Schedule No. 1 
become effective at the earliest possible date.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before

[[Page 19619]]

May 6, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10877 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.46





Exhibit 10.46




Summary of the Terms of Verint Systems Inc. Executive Officer Annual Bonus Plan




Verint Systems Inc. (the “Company”) maintains an annual bonus program (the
“AIP”) for its executive officers. Under the AIP, each executive officer is eligible to
receive an annual cash bonus upon the satisfaction of pre-determined performance goals. The target
bonus under the AIP is established annually by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of
Directors (the “Committee”) as part of the Committee’s regular compensation review process
and is paid upon certification by the Committee of the achievement of the underlying performance
goals. In establishing target bonuses, in addition to the factors considered as part of the
compensation review process generally, the Committee also considers the target bonus set forth in
the executive officer’s employment agreement (if applicable), as well as special achievements,
promotions, and other facts and circumstances specific to the individual officer.



The performance goals under the AIP are based on revenue, a measure of profitability, and a
measure of cash generation (e.g., days sales outstanding) and expressed on a non-GAAP basis. In the
case of executive officers with responsibility for a specific operating unit, unit revenue and unit
profitability goals (contribution margin) are also incorporated into the executive officer’s
performance goals. In addition to company-wide performance goals (or if applicable, unit-based
goals) a portion of the target bonus may also be tied to the achievement of non-financial
management business objectives (MBOs) approved by the Committee. The financial performance goals
established by the Committee generally come in the form of a range, wherein the executive officer
may achieve a percentage of his or her target bonus (generally 50-75%) at the low end of the
performance range (or threshold), 100% of his target bonus towards the middle of the performance
range (target performance), and up to 200% of his target bonus at the high end of the performance
range.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11811]



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


LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: The Operations and Regulations Committee of the Legal 
Services Corporation's Board of Directors will meet on May 19, 1996. 
The meeting will begin at 2:00 p.m. and continue until conclusion of 
the committee's agenda.

LOCATION: Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street NE, 11th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20002, (202) 336-8800.

STATUS OF MEETING: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Approval of Agenda.
    2. Consider and act on staff and OPM recommendations relating to 
internal personnel policies of the Corporation.
    3. Consider and act on measures or steps necessary for the 
implementation of new restrictions and requirements imposed by Pub. L. 
104-134 (H.R. 3019) and the provision of guidance to the public as to 
those restrictions and requirements.
    4. Consider and act on other business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel, 
(202) 336-8800.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Barbara Asante, at (202) 336-8800.

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
Victor M. Fortuno.
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-11811 Filed 5-8-96; 12:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### In the Matter of William S. Campbell, Respondent, v Robert R. Kiley et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority dated November 14, 1986, which denied the petitioner back pay including so-called night differential pay, Robert R. Kiley, David L. Gunn and the New York City Transit Authority appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 5,1988, as is in favor of the petitioner and against the New York City Transit Authority for night differential pay in the principal sum of $5,074.68.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the part of the proceeding requesting night differential pay is dismissed.

Contrary to the holding of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was not entitled to recover night differential pay during the period that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment *(see,*Civil Service Law § 76 [3]; *Alongi v City of New York,*92 Misc 2d 1082; *cf., Benson v County of Nassau,*137 AD2d 642). There is no indication in the record of any provision in the collective bargaining agreement which provides for night differential pay during a period of wrongful dismissal. To the contrary, the agreement provides that if charges which are preferred against an employee are not sustained the employee will be paid at his/her regular rate of pay for the time lost by reason of such charges and that night differential pay be paid only "for hours worked” after 6:00 p.m. *(see, Alongi v City of New York, supra; cf., Benson v County of Nassau, supra).*Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to receive night differential pay for the period of his wrongful dismissal. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
EX-10.2



 








Exhibit 10.2




FORM OF AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the CT Communications, Inc. Amended and Restated
2001 Stock Incentive Plan Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement(s) identified on Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein (the “Option Agreement”) with                      (the “Optionee”) is made
as of July 28, 2006 by CT Communications, Inc., a North Carolina corporation (the “Company”).



     WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interests of both the Company and
the Optionee to amend the Option Agreement to provide that the Option Price, as defined in the
Option Agreement, may be paid, in whole or in part, by withholding shares of the Company’s common
stock otherwise issuable pursuant to the terms of the Option Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Option Agreement is amended as follows:




	1.	 	The Section labeled Form of Payment is deleted in its entirety and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:

	 
	 	 	“When you submit your notice of exercise, you must include payment of the Option
Price for the shares you are purchasing. Payment may be made in one (or a
combination) of the following forms:







	 	•	 	Cash, your personal check, a cashier’s check, a money order or
another cash equivalent acceptable to the Company.

	 
	 	•	 	Shares of Stock which have already been owned by you and which
are surrendered to the Company. The value of the shares, determined as of
the effective date of the option exercise, will be applied to the Option
Price.

	 
	 	•	 	By directing the Company to withhold shares of Stock issuable
on the exercise of the option equal in value to that portion of the Option
Price to be paid by the surrender of shares. The value of the shares will
be determined as of the effective date of the option exercise.

	 
	 	•	 	To the extent a public market for the Stock exists as
determined by the Company, by delivery (on a form prescribed by the
Company) of an irrevocable direction to a licensed securities broker
acceptable to the Company to sell Stock and to deliver all or part of the
sale proceeds to the Company in payment of the aggregate Option Price and
any withholding taxes.







	2.	 	Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Option Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.






     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has duly executed and delivered this Amendment No. 1, or has
caused this Amendment No. 1 to be duly executed and delivered in its name and on its behalf, as of
the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	Its:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 






41









 






EXHIBIT A

TO THE

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




Optionee:                     




	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreement Date	 	Number of Options	 	Option Price
	 
	 	 	 	 






42
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN JERMAINE MELVIN, a/k/a Baby-Boy, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-94-139-5-2-F, CA-98-950-5-F) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Kevin Jermaine Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Stuart Wilson, OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Jermaine Melvin appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Melvin , Nos. CR-94-139-5-2-F; CA-98-950-5-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin BLUE, Appellant. Kevin BLUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 59205, 61809.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 16, 1993.

Emily N. Blood, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Spillane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We find the trial court did not plainly err in its failure to exclude a witness the Defendant was unable to interview when the State released the name of said witness to Defendant and no evidence of impropriety by the State was presented. Rule 25.03(A)(1). Therefore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Further, we find the motion court did not clearly err in its denial of Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion. Therefore, we affirm the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this case. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by written summary order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Rose, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered April 15, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1166]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary; Notice of Intent to Issue a 
Special Use Permit; Request for Applications for Special Use Permit; 
Request for Comments; Correction

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the public notice of intent to issue, and request for 
applications for a special use permit to conduct non-research diving at 
the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (MNMS) (60 FR 63508, December 11, 
1995) make the following corrections:
    On page 63508, in the second column, the fax number listed in the 
addresses section should be changed to: 804-591-7310.
    On page 63509, in the second column, last paragraph, item #3, 
should be corrected to read:
    3. The permittee shall use only vessels that meet all applicable 
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) certification and license requirements and that 
are appropriately inspected, certified, and licensed. A low profile 
vessel of less than 45 feet in length is preferred.
    This correction clarifies that the 45 foot vessel length is a 
preference rather than a requirement. Due to the logistics of this 
activity and the weather and current conditions frequently found at the 
Monitor site, NOAA prefers that vessels be no larger than 45 feet in 
length. However, NOAA did not intend to preclude the use of larger 
vessels provided that applicants who wish to use a larger vessel 
explain in their application why this is appropriate.

    Dated: January 19, 1996.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management.
[FR Doc. 96-1166 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
EXHIBIT 32.1


                              ADZONE RESEARCH, INC.
                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 of AdZone Research, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Cardona, Chief
Executive Officer, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 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 the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AdZone Research, Inc. and will be retained by AdZone Research, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

Date: July 8, 2004
                                        /s/ Charles Cardona
                                        ----------------------
                                        Name: Charles Cardona
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                        and Acting Chief Financial Officer
(June 21, 1990)

#### Property Clerk of New York City Police Department, Respondent, v Michael Fanning, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 9, 1989, which granted a petition seeking, *283
      *inter alia,*forfeiture of respondent’s automobile, upon making a finding that petitioner’s seizure and continued possession of the subject automobile, which had been used in a drug transaction, was lawful and proper, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of arresting officer John Pszczola, which was submitted in support of the petition, established that he stopped respondent’s vehicle after he had received information from a fellow undercover officer that he had just purchased cocaine from two individuals seated in respondent’s car. Pszczola’s affidavit also included statements as to his personal observations relating to defendant’s transportation of narcotics, by car, away from the point of sale, and the fact that he recovered from respondent and the other passengers cocaine, prerecorded "buy” money and drug paraphernalia. These evidentiary facts, as set forth in Pszczola’s affidavit, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s vehicle was used in furtherance of a crime *(see,*Administrative Code of City of New York § 14-140 [e] [1]; *Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston,*104 AD2d 312, 313). Grounds for forfeiture of the vehicle were thereby sufficiently established.

Defendant’s unverified answer, prepared by his attorney and founded "upon information and belief’, was insufficient to controvert petitioner’s evidence *(see,*CPLR 3020), and therefore defendant did not sustain his burden of presenting evidentiary facts sufficient to show that the seizure and possession of his vehicle was unlawful and improper *(see, Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston,*104 AD2d, *supra,*at 313). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.