alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.5**

 

May 11, 2009

 

Jonathan W. Trutter

c/o Deerfield Capital Management LLC6250 North River Road, 9th Floor

Rosemont, Illinois 60018

 

Dear Jonathan:

 

As provided inyour Employment Agreement with Deerfield Capital Management LLC (the “Company”),dated June 26, 2004 (the “2004 Employment Agreement”), you are entitled toreceive a payment equal to $2,000,000 (the “Retention Bonus”) in the event thatyou remain employed by the Company or an affiliate of the Company through June 25,2009.  Due to your valuable contributionto the Company and your commitment to invest a minimum of $500,000 in aninvestment vehicle managed by the Company, Deerfield Pegasus Loan Capital LP (“DPLC”),the Company agrees to accelerate the vesting of a portion of the RetentionBonus.  In accordance with the foregoing,the Company hereby agrees to the following, subject to your acknowledgement andagreement below:

 

(A)          You shall be entitled to anacceleration of the vesting of a portion of the Retention Bonus (the “AcceleratedAmount”), which amount shall be calculated pursuant to the following sentencesand paid to you within five days following the date of this letteragreement.  The Accelerated Amount shallbe equal to the amount required to be treated as compensation to you for incometax purposes such that the actual payment amount to you (as determined usingthe Company’s standard payroll practices) is equal to $400,000.  For avoidance of doubt, for purposes of thisletter agreement and the 2004 Employment Agreement, upon payment of the amountrequired by this paragraph, the Company shall be treated as having made apayment to you of the entire amount of the Accelerated Amount (not only apayment of $400,000).

 

(B)           You commit to invest $400,000 of theAccelerated Amount in DPLC on a pro rata basis with the Company or itsaffiliates, subject to the Company satisfying its own capital commitment.

 

(C)           Within five days following June 25,2009, the Company shall pay you an amount equal to $2,000,000 less theAccelerated Amount.

 

----

 

This letteragreement is binding upon you and the Company and its successors andassigns.  Except as specifically amendedherein, all provisions of the 2004 Employment Agreement remain in effect.

 

 
| Sincerely,                       |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   |
| Deerfield Capital Management LLC |   |
|                             |   |
|                             |   |
| /s/ Robert A. Contreras          |   |
| Name: Robert A. Contreras        |   |
| Title: General Counsel           |   |
|                             |   |
|                             |   |
| Acknowledged and Agreed:         |   |
|                             |   |
|                             |   |
| /s/ Jonathan W. Trutter          |   |
| Name: Jonathan W. Trutter        |   |
| Date: May 11, 2009          |   |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

SUMMIT REHABILITATION, P.C. AND 

 AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2676-07-1 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 11, 2008 

CHRISTINE S. EDWARDS 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kevin D. Sharp; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellants. 

 (Ann K. Sullivan; Melissa Morris Picco; Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, 

P.L.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Summit Rehabilitation, P.C. and its insurer (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal 

a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding compensation benefits to 

Christine S. Edwards (claimant). Employer argues the commission erred by finding that 

claimant proved her March 7, 2006 injury by accident (1) arose out of her employment; and 

(2) occurred in the course of her employment. In its October 12, 2007 opinion, the commission 

specifically stated that employer’s assertion on review was that claimant’s accident did not arise 

out of the employment, and addressed that sole issue. Accordingly, because the commission did 

not address the “in the course of employment” issue on review, we are barred from considering it 

on appeal. See Rule 5A:18; see also Kendrick v. Nationwide Homes, Inc., 4 Va. App. 189, 192, 

355 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1987).1

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 To the extent that employer’s written statement on review could be construed to raise 

the “in the course of employment” issue, employer failed to obtain a ruling from the commission 

on review on that issue by filing a motion for reconsideration or rehearing. Thus, we are barred 
- 2 - 

 With respect to the “arising out of the employment” issue, we have reviewed the record 

and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Edwards v. Summit 

Rehabilitation, P.C., VWC File No. 227-80-33 (Oct. 12, 2007). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 

from considering it on appeal by Rule 5A:18. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 

Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003). Employer does not argue that we should invoke the 

exceptions to Rule 5A:18, and we decline to do so sua sponte. Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 

Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc).
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 of Aviza Technology, Inc. (the
“Company”), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




(1)
            the
      accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      December 26, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented therein.







Date:
February 5, 2009


By:  /s/ Patrick C.
O’Connor


Patrick
C. O’Connor


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2




Summary
of Annual Cash Bonus Plan for President and Chief
Operating Officer




     Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) has an annual cash
bonus plan for its current President and Chief Operating Officer. The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
annually determines the performance criteria upon which awards under
the plan will be based. Pursuant to the plan, the President and Chief
Operating Officer will be eligible to receive an annual award of up
to a specified percentage of his annual base salary.
Opinion issued August 12, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00045-CV

———————————

IN RE TABAITHA VITAL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Tabaitha Vital seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s order 

denying her Amended Motion to Strike Real Parties in Interest’s Original Petition 

in Intervention in the underlying case.

1

 We deny the petition. All pending motions 

are dismissed as moot.

1 The underlying case is Alexis L. Norman v. Tabaitha Vital, Cause Number 2019-

49803, pending in the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable 

Christine Weems presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.
#### Daniel BRONFMAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri and State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondents.

No. WD 48465.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 26, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Lloyd Heilman, Kansas City, for appellant.

Dennis E. Lee, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for City of Kansas City, respondent.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Reginald Harrington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for State of Mo., Second Injury Fund.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Bronfman appeals the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding permanent partial disability of 20% of the body as a whole and no “liability” on the part of the Second Injury Fund.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-232-000]

Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 10, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 6, 1996, Northern Border Pipeline Company 
(Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of Northern Border 
Pipeline Company's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the 
following tariff sheet to become effective June 5, 1996:

Second Revised Sheet Number 162

    Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to allow 
Northern Border to substantiate a prospective IT-1 Shipper's unaudited 
year-end financial statements by analysis of the audited financial 
statements of the Shipper's parent or affiliate. As proposed if a 
Shipper with unaudited year-end financial statements has an acceptable 
credit and financial history and the Shipper's financial statements can 
be substantiated by its parent's or affiliate's audited financial 
statements, Northern Border would be able to accept the Shipper's 
financials as credit support. Without this change, no matter what is 
provided in support for the Shipper's credit, without audited financial 
statements of Shipper, Shipper cannot meet Northern Border's credit 
standard.
    The herein proposed change does not result in a change in Northern 
Border's total revenue requirement.
    Northern Border states that copies of this filing have been sent to 
all of Northern Border's contracted shippers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Section 385.214 and Section 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12312 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1970

MUSTAFA H. SA’ID, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, et al; BESTBUY, INC.; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al; D. A. CROOKE, Sergeant, individually; J. THOMAS MANGER, Colonel, individually; ERIC HANTE, Officer, individually; BRIAN J. MCANDREW, Lieutenant, individually; LEON G. WILLIAMS, Major; THOMAS RYAN, Captain,individually; ARTHUR J. HURLOCK, JR., individually; THOMAS E. TYMAN, individually; CHARLES K. PETERS, Captain, individually; WILLIAMSAUDREY M. SLYMAN, Major, individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, et al, Workers Compensation Commissioners; SUSAN A. CUMMINS, individually, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa Carroll Buchanan, Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr., and Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judges. (CA-01-677-A) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Mustafa H. Sa’id, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Gouldin Killalea, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia; Louis Edward Matthews, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Mustafa H. Sa’id appeals the district court’s orders dismissing several Defendants in this civil action, prohibiting discovery by Sa’id pending further order of the court, and directing Sa’id toappear for a hearing. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The orders here appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 97 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development
[Docket No. FR-3778-N-85]

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Johnston, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7256, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20410; telephone (202) 708-1226; TDD number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: May 10, 1996.
Jacquie M. Lawing,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development.
[FR Doc. 96-12275 Filed 5-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-46894, 333-55256, 333-85832, 333-105422, 333-114279, 333-124387 and 333-136505) of STEC, Inc. (formerly SimpleTech, Inc.) of our report dated March 23, 2007 relating to theconsolidated financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

Orange County, California 

March 30, 2007
I, Song Ru-Hua, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of TOP Group Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's
auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated:  March 15, 2004         By: /s/ Song Ru-Hua
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Song Ru-Hua
                                   President
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Polly Bergen, Appellant, v 791 Park Avenue Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York *331County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about July 7, 1989, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it on January 12, 1989, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff conceded below that defendant’s default was inadvertent and excusable. The sole issue remaining was whether defendant had a meritorious defense. Plaintiff’s argument below and on appeal is specifically addressed to the merits of the lawsuit, and invites the court to conduct an evaluation thereof. However, such an inquiry is premature at this juncture. It is not necessary for defendant to prove its defense, but only to set forth facts sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense. *(Tat Sang Kwong v Budge-Wood Laundry Serv.,*97 AD2d 691, 692.) The defendant has made such a showing in its assertion that the proprietary lease was validly amended to impose the "flip tax” challenged by plaintiff, prior to the sale of her apartment. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
DOA: 10-25-17

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

-

Case 2:17-mj-00491-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00491-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00491-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-00491-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/26/17 Page 4 of 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Rivera, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered March 30, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, 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.
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  M AXWELL H OFFMAN , No. 02-99004

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. CV-94-00200-SA RVON J. A RAVE , Warden, Idaho BLW



#  Maximum Security Institution, District of Idaho, Department of Correction, State of Boise Idaho, ORDER

Respondent-Appellee. 

# 

Filed March 3, 2008

Before: Harry Pregerson, William A. Fletcher, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The order filed on February 14, 2008, is hereby designated for publication.

1907PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson/West.
The conclusions of law state, among other things, that the newly discovered evidence in 1

Applicant’s case “creates a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,305

EX PARTE CLAUDE A. SIMMONS, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F97-02027 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder

and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Simmons

v. State, No. 05-97-01987-CR (Tex. App.–Dallas 1999, pet. ref’d).

Applicant contends that he is actually innocent. The trial court adopted Applicant’s and the

State’s supplemental stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law, determined that Applicant 1
2

confidence in the verdict” and that “it is more than probable that the verdict would be different

on a retrial.” We decline to adopt these conclusions of law. They are not consistent with the

evidentiary standard in a freestanding actual innocence claim. An applicant raising this claim has

to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted

him in light of the new evidence.” Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996). 

has established that he is actually innocent, and recommended that we grant relief. We agree.

Accordingly, relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. F97-02027 in the Criminal District Court

of Dallas County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas

County to answer the charges against him. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: March 3, 2010

Do Not Publish