alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10wt






EXHIBIT 10T




COGNEX CORPORATION

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BONUS PROGRAM



Cognex Corporation (the “Company”) provides selected employees, including the Company’s named
executive officers, with an opportunity to earn cash bonuses pursuant to an annual bonus program
(the “Bonus Program”). Each participant in the Bonus Program is assigned a target annual cash
bonus. Participants may earn their bonuses based on the achievement of certain financial goals
set forth in the Company’s annual budget related to the Company’s operating income (excluding
stock-based compensation expense) as a percentage of revenue, or “operating margin.” The
Compensation/Stock Option Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors establishes a minimum
level of operating margin, which must be achieved for any cash bonus to be paid to a participant.
Once the minimum threshold has been achieved, each participant’s eligible bonus is calculated as
follows:





	 	•	 	if the operating margin is above the minimum threshold but below the operating margin
target in the annual budget, each employee is eligible to receive a pro-rata portion of his
or her target bonus;
	 
	 	•	 	if the operating margin is equal to the operating margin set forth in the annual budget,
each employee is eligible to receive 100% of his or her target bonus; and
	 
	 	•	 	if the operating margin is above the operating margin set forth in the annual budget,
all exempt employees are eligible to receive an additional amount depending upon his or her
grade level and up to a maximum level approved by the Compensation/Stock Option Committee.




The Compensation/Stock Option Committee approves the target bonus for each employee at director
level and above, which includes the Company’s named executive officers, and the amount by which
each individual can participate in any increase due to performance in excess of the budget target.
Once the operating margin criterion is met, the amount each employee at director level and above,
which includes the Company’s named executive officers, receives depends upon the achievement of
individual performance goals, which are established annually.



Under the Bonus Program, Robert J. Shillman, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and President,
has the opportunity to earn 0-300% of his target bonus amount based on the achievement of the
specified performance goals; Eric A. Ceyrolle, the Company’s Executive Vice President of Worldwide
Sales and Marketing, has the opportunity to earn 0-225% of his target bonus amount based on the
achievement of the specified performance goals; and the other executive officers have the
opportunity to earn 0-200% of their target bonus amounts based on the achievement of the specified
performance goals.



The annual bonuses for the Company’s named executive officers are listed in the Summary
Compensation Table set forth in the Company’s proxy statement for its annual meeting of
shareholders.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) of
PennantPark Investment Corporation and Subsidiaries (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|August 4, 2010
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER
THE EXCHANGE ACT

I, Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Mittal Steel Company N.V.;
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.      Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and

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

Date: July 3, 2007



|                      |  | 
|--------------------- |  | 
|/s/ LAKSHMI N. MITTAL |  | 
|Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal |  | 

Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Mittal Steel
Company N.V.



---

I, Mr. Aditya Mittal, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Mittal Steel Company N.V.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and

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

Date: July 3, 2007



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|/s/ ADITYA MITTAL |  | 
|Mr. Aditya Mittal |  | 

Chief Financial Officer, Member of the Group Management Board, Flat Products
Americas.
#### Western Savings Bank, Appellant, *v.*Sauers.

*Promissory notes*— Negotiable *instruments*— Renewal *note*— En*dorsement*— Endorsement *induced by fraud*— Judgment *non obstante veredicto.*

The endorser of a renewal note is not liable in an action thereon when his endorsement has been procured through a promise by an officer of the plaintiff bank, the holder, that he would insert in the body of the note the same collateral securities that had been pledged by the maker for the payment of the original obligation, when in fact more than a year before the endorsement such officer had fraudulently abstracted the securities and had substituted others for them, and this fact was known to the plaintiff before defendant’s endorsement.

Argued Nov. 5, 1913.

Appeal, No. 264, Oct. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1911, No. 795, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Western Savings and Deposit Bank of Pittsburgh v. John Sauers.

Before Beown, Mesteezat, Pot-tee, Elkin and Stewaet, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on promissory note. Before Cohen, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $6,825.61. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.

*562
      *F. D. McCloskey,*of *Kinnear, McCloskey £ Best,*for appellant.

*Joseph Stadtfeld,*with him *Thomas H. Hasson,*for appellee.

January 5, 1914:

Per Curiam,

The appellee endorsed the renewal note of September 30,1909, at the request of the bank and under the promise of the assistant cashier that he would insert in the body of the note the same collateral securities that had been pledged by the maker for the payment of the original obligation. The appellee was thus clearly given to understand that the bank still held, and would continue to hold, those securities for his protection; but, as a matter of fact, the assistant cashier, more than a year before, had fraudulently abstracted the thirty shares of the capital stock of the Parkersburg Industrial Company and substituted other stocks for them. The bank had actual knowledge of this substitution some months before the appellee endorsed the renewal note. The maker of the original note knew nothing of this substitution and the appellee was ignorant of it at the time he endorsed the renewal note. This action is upon his endorsement of that note, but, as he was induced to endorse it through a bald and substantial fraud, practiced upon him by the representative of the bank, his endorsement created no liability, and the judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto, having, been properly entered, is now affirmed.
#### Roselyn FARNSWORTH, Appellant, v. MAGNET, INC., Respondent.

No. 65636.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 26, 1994.

Cynthia S. Holmes, Clayton, for appellant.

Michael F. Banahan, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s award is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Johnson v. City of Duenweg Fire Dept.,*735 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Mo. banc 1987). An extended opinion would not have precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES MARK TAIT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

08-CV-14191

vs.

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

CAPITOL CITY TITLE AGENCY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

JAMES MARK TAIT,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

08-CV-14411

vs.

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

CLARKSTON STATE BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 31, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing these matters for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). On September 11, 2009, Plaintiff James

Mark Tait (“Tait”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order.

Motions for reconsideration are governed by E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g)(3), which states, in

relevant part, that a party moving for reconsideration must “not only demonstrate a palpable defect

by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will

result in a different disposition of the case.”

Tait’s motion for reconsideration does not demonstrate a palpable defect. Accordingly, Tait

2:08-cv-14191-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 55
2

has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought. His motion is therefore denied.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 29, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 29, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14191-PDB-PJK Doc # 10 Filed 09/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 56
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 02, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 02, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0207. DAVID ABERCROMBIE v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2016CR299
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 108

  To prohibit the admission of an alien who was detained as an enemy 
combatant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless the President determines that 
 such admission is consistent with the national security of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the admission of an alien who was detained as an enemy 
combatant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba unless the President determines that 
 such admission is consistent with the national security of the United 
                    States, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protection from Enemy Combatants 
Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ADMISSION OF ALIENS DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO BAY, 
              CUBA.

    (a) Covered Alien Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered 
alien'' means an alien who was detained as an enemy combatant by the 
United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    (b) Prohibition on Admission by a Court.--Subject to subsection 
(d), a court of the United States may not order the release or parole 
into the United States of a covered alien.
    (c) Prohibition on Admission by the Secretary of State or the 
Secretary Homeland Security.--
            (1) Visa.--Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of 
        State may not issue any visa to a covered alien that would 
        permit the covered alien to enter, or be admitted to, the 
        United States.
            (2) Immigration status.--Subject to subsection (d), the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security may not admit or provide any 
        type of immigration status to a covered alien that would permit 
        the covered alien to enter, or be admitted to, the United 
        States.
    (d) Waiver.--The President, in the sole discretion of the 
President, may waive a restriction described in subsection (b) or (c), 
in whole or in part, if the President determines that the waiver of 
such restriction is consistent with the national security of the United 
States.
                                 <all>
```
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

###### JON AARSTADSTEVE CARTER

Vanderburgh County Public Defender AgencyAttorney General of Indiana

Evansville, Indiana

**RICHARD C. WEBSTER**

****Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

# __________________________________________________________________

# IN THE

## SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CHAD LEROY GOODWIN,)

)

Appellant-(Defendant),)82S01-0302-CR-73

)in the Supreme Court 

v.)

)82A01-0112-CR-483

STATE OF INDIANA,)in the Court of Appeals

)

Appellee-(Plaintiff).)

APPEAL FROM THE VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Robert J. Tornatta, Judge

Cause No.  82D02-0108-CF-575

**February 21, 2003**

**SHEPARD, Chief Justice.**

****A jury found appellant Chad Leroy Goodwin guilty of armed robbery for holding up a Pantry store in Evansville, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison.  The Court of Appeals found certain evidence wrongly admitted and reversed.  We grant transfer and affirm the trial court.

The State’s evidence was considerable.  Aside from the store clerk who identified Goodwin as the perpetrator, the State called a number of Goodwin’s friends.  One of these acquaintances described Goodwin’s announcement that he intended to commit the robbery.  In an apparent effort to portray this announcement as puffery not to be taken seriously, defense counsel asked the witness, “Did you ever know him to do anything like that during the time you were dating?”  The witness replied, “I had known him to break into cars and do little things but I’ve never known him to actually rob a Pantry.”  Tr. at 47-48.

Other friends testified about how Goodwin later described the robbery, what he was wearing, what he took from the clerk, what he did with the weapon, and so on.  The prosecution queried these witnesses about Goodwin’s other exploits, which did largely turn out to be non-violent larcenies like smashing car windows to steal the stereos.

The defense did not object to any of this evidence.  A divided Court of Appeals held that its admission constituted fundamental error requiring reversal.  Goodwin v. State, 777 N.E.2d 1216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Baker, J., dissenting).

Failure to object at trial customarily means that a party has not preserved any claim for appeal.  The fundamental error exception to this rule permits reversal when there has been a “blatant violation of basic principles” that denies a defendant “fundamental due process.”  Wilson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind. 1987).

The evidence elicited from Goodwin’s friends did not qualify under this standard.  Neither did the prosecutor’s questions suggesting that Goodwin needed somehow to straighten out his life nor his argument to the jury that it should “[h]elp us help Chad and return with a verdict of guilty,” to which there were likewise no objections.  Tr. at 170.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.

PAGE  

3
Base Salary for Named Executive Officer



 Exhibit 10.2 
 BASE SALARY FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
 The Company’s named Executive Officers include Darrell G. Swanigan, President
and Chief Executive Officer; James R. A. Stanley, Jr., Executive Vice President and Senior Loan Officer; and Keith B. Hawkins, Executive Vice President and Commercial Loan Officer. Salary information for each Executive Officer is contained in the
table below: 
  

								
	 Name
	  	 Title
	  	 Salary
	  	 Effective Date

	Darrell G. Swanigan	  	President and Chief Executive Officer	  	$	162,000	  	January 1, 2008
				
	James R. A. Stanley, Jr.	  	Executive Vice President and Senior Loan Officer	  	$	135,000	  	April 1, 2008
				
	Keith B. Hawkins	  	Executive Vice President and Commercial Loan Officer	  	$	135,000	  	January 1, 2008

  

 68
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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey 

 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

[PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING 

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 

Upon Defendant’s Motion to Amend his Conditions of Pretrial Release and Motion for 

Expedited Relief, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s conditions of pretrial release are 

modified to remove the condition requiring continued use of an electronic monitoring device; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by agreement of the parties, modifying release conditions 

to allow property bond (Doc. 65) to be replaced with substitute res of the net proceeds from the 

interlocutory sale of 1100 Union Street, San Francisco, California. 

Dated: ________________________ 

 __________________________________ 

 Honorable Susan M. Brnovich 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 503-1 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 1
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 quarterly report of Ring Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned principal executive officer and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.  Date:  August 14, 2012     /s/ Robert Steve Owens Robert Steve Owens, President & Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
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

DAVID EISENBERG

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Arizona State Bar No. 017218

Telephone: 602.237.5076

Email: david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla, 

Defendant.

CR-18-00422-06-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

DEFENDANT TO APPEAR BY

TELEPHONE OR BY VIDEO

TELECONFERENCE

(Hearing Set for July 27, 2023 at 3:00

pm)

The Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits

the Defendant’s request that he be allowed to appear by telephone or video conference for the

final pretrial conference set for July 27, 2023, starting at 3:00 pm. The grounds for this request

are that Mr. Padilla resides in the Dallas, Texas area. The round trip fare to fly from Dallas to

Phoenix and back is approximately $560, and the hotel cost for two nights would be

approximately $470. These expenses do not include ground transportation. This is a

considerable outlay of funds for Mr. Padilla.

Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order allowing him

to appear telephonically or by video teleconference.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of July, 2022.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1644 Filed 07/24/23 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 2

s/ David Eisenberg

 

DAVID EISENBERG

Counsel for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on July 24, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic

Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of

record. 

 s/ David Eisenberg 

 David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1644 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 2
#### Ardell RUETHER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 57194.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 10, 1990.

*869Paul E. Madison, Asst. Public Defender, St. Charles, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the dismissal of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.