alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w51



 





EXHIBIT 10.51


Description of Charter Communications, Inc.

2005 Executive Bonus Plan


Executive Officers of Charter
Communication, Inc. (“Charter”) and certain other
managerial and professional employees of Charter and its subsidiaries
are eligible to participate in Charter’s 2005 Executive Bonus Plan.
Bonuses for eligible employees for 2005 will be determined based on the extent
to which Charter’s (or , if applicable, a divisional
employee’s particular division’s) performance during 2005
meets or exceeds budgeted goals with respect to four performance
measures. These measures, and the percentage of an employee’s
bonus allocated to each measure, are Revenue (40%), Operating Cash
Flow (20%), Free Cash Flow (20%) and Customer Satisfaction (20%).
Customer Satisfaction will be measured against quantifiable
statistics to be determined by the board of directors or compensation
committee, which are expected to include items such as installation
completion rate, repeat service rate for trouble calls, trouble
service rate within 30 days of installation, total service rate,
percent of disconnects following installation and certain call center
measures.


With respect to each
performance measure listed above, the eligible employee would receive
100% of the portion of his or her target bonus allocated to that
performance measure if Charter’s  (or such employee’s
division’s) performance reaches the budgeted goal for that
measure. Also, for each performance measure, the employee would
receive a portion of the allocated percentage if the performance
exceeds 95% of the budgeted goal, and could receive as much as 150%
of the allocated percentage if the performance exceeds the applicable budgeted goal by 5%. Each employee’s
target bonus is determined based on market data and position within
the company. Target bonuses for executive officers range from 40% to
50% of base salary, subject to applicable employment agreements.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 12

- 00460

- CR



### ____________________

MAURICE A. WILLIAMS A/K/A MAURICE ANTONIO WILLIAMS

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 10

- 09440

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Maurice A. Williams a/k/a Maurice

Antonio Williams pleaded guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence

sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed

Wi lliams on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed

a motion to revoke Williams’s unadjudicated community supervision. Williams

pleaded “true” to violating one condition of his community supervision. The trial2 court found that Wil liams violated his community supervision, found Williams

guilty of robbery, and sentenced Williams to twelve years in prison.

Williams’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes Williams’ s appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);

High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 8, 2012, we

granted an extension of time for Williams to file a pro se brief. We received no

response from Williams. We have determined that t his appeal is wholly frivolous.

We have independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and

we agree that no arg uable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appoin tment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813

S.W.2d 5 03, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on February 6, 2013

Opinion Delivered February 20, 2013

D o Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., G aultney and Kreger, JJ.

1 Williams may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132873 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132873 

 COA: 262956 

Wayne CC: 04-011943-01

KANYAMA HAMPTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for 

correction of the judgment of sentence to reflect the sentence and restitution actually 

imposed by the court at sentencing. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve a 

prison term of 40 to 120 months for his conviction of assault with intent to do great 

bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84; however, the judgment of sentence indicates 

that the sentence for this offense is one to five years. In addition, the judgment of 

sentence fails to reflect that the trial court ordered the defendant to pay restitution of 

$9,115. The trial court is further ORDERED to ensure that the corrected judgment of 

sentence is transmitted to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

d0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1528

LINDA A. EVANS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GEORGE L. PERRY, 

Director of Pitt County Social Services in his official 

capacity; APRIL HANNING, in her individual capacity; 

CYNTHIA M. ROSS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MARTIN 

CURTIS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MILLION, in her 

individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:12-cv-00226-FL)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda A. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, 

SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North 

Carolina, for Appellees. Linda Martin Curtis, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Linda A. Evans filed a complaint against the Pitt County 

Department of Social Services (“DSS”), George Perry, April 

Hanning, Cynthia Ross, Linda Million, and Linda Curtis alleging 

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and under state law. 

The district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissed all of Evans’ claims against DSS, Perry, 

Ross, and Million except her claims of procedural due process 

violations.* The court later granted summary judgment in favor 

of Curtis on Evans’ remaining claims. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we 

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district 

court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * On Perry, Ross, and Million’s previous appeal of the 

district court’s interlocutory order denying them absolute 

immunity from Evans’ claims of procedural due process 

violations, we vacated the portion of the district court’s order 

allowing those claims to go forward and remanded with 

instructions to dismiss those claims. Those issues are

therefore not before this court in the current appeal.
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST 
 IN 

ARCADIA HOLDINGS AT CC HIGHLANDS TWO, LLC 

Dale Francescon and Robert J. Francescon (collectively, “Assignor”) on behalf of Daro Ventures, LLC and Daro Ventures II,
LLC, hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns to Century Communities Colorado, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Assignee”), Assignor’s entire interest (the “Assigned Interest”) in Arcadia Holdings at
CC Highlands Two, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“CCH). In connection with such assignment, Assignor and Assignee agree as follows: 

Assignor hereby represents and warrants to Assignee that as of the execution of this Assignment by the two parties, that Assignor owns the
entire membership interest in, to and of CCH. 
 This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors,
assignees, personal representatives, heirs and legatees of all the respective parties hereto. 
 This Assignment may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for all purposes, and all of which when taken together shall constitute a single counterpart instrument. Executed signature pages to any counterpart instrument may be detached and
affixed to a single counterpart, with such single counterpart with multiple executed signature pages affixed there to constituting the original counterpart instrument. All of those counterpart pages shall be read as though one, and they shall have
the same force and effect as if all the signers had executed a single signature page. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 







 This Assignment is effective as of the 31st day of December,
2012. 
  

	
	ASSIGNOR
	
	




	Dale Francescon
	
	




	Robert J. Francescon
	
	ASSIGNEE
	
	CENTURY COMMUNITIES COLORADO, LLC
	
	




	Dale Francescon, CO-CEO
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10944

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACKIE EUGENE CLAYTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-15-1

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jackie Eugene Clayton has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Clayton has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10944 Document: 00514480605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2018
No. 17-10944

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10944 Document: 00514480605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2018
May 29, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TAMMY MCGEE QUISENBERRY, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00511-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10116

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRYSTAL CHANDERLER CARR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-183-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Crystal Chanderler Carr appeals the sentence imposed following her 

guilty-plea conviction for one count of aiding in the preparation of a false tax 

return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and one count of filing a false tax 

return in violation of § 7206(1). She contends that the 72-month, aboveguidelines sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court 

failed to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence. Specifically, Carr 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10116 Document: 00515236244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2019
No. 19-10116

2

argues that the district court failed to consider or address her nonfrivolous 

arguments for a below-guidelines sentence, “focusing its explanation entirely 

on the negative side of the punishment ledger.”

Because Carr did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s 

reasons, her procedural unreasonableness claim is subject to plain-error 

review. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 

2009). To show plain error, Carr must show a forfeited error that is clear or 

obvious and that affects her substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes such a showing, this court has the 

discretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The sentencing record reflects that the district court sufficiently 

explained its reasons for imposing the above-guidelines sentence. The district 

court explicitly stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors 

and gave reasons tied to those factors. Although the district court did not 

expressly address Carr’s mitigation arguments, the court acknowledged that 

it had reviewed her sentencing memorandum and request for a downward 

variance. Because the district court’s explanation for the chosen sentence 

allows for effective appellate review, Carr has failed to show error, much less 

clear or obvious error. See United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 439 (5th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-10116 Document: 00515236244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2019
Filed pursuant to
                                                                  Rule 424(b)(2)
                                                       Registration No. 33-59791

                                  $500,000,000
                                    CITICORP
                       Medium-Term Senior Notes, Series E
                    Medium-Term Subordinated Notes, Series E
                Due From 9 Months to 50 Years From Date of Issue

Pricing  Supplement,  dated February 16, 1996 (To Prospectus  Supplement,  dated
August 7, 1995, to Prospectus, dated August 7, 1995).

                              DESCRIPTION OF NOTES

      The terms of the Notes set forth in this Pricing Supplement supplement and
modify,  to  the  extent  applicable,  the  description  of  general  terms  and
provisions of Citicorp's  Medium-Term  Subordinated Notes, Series E set forth in
the accompanying  Prospectus and Prospectus  Supplement.  Capitalized  terms not
defined  herein  shall  have  the  meanings   assigned  to  such  terms  in  the
accompanying Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement.

SUMMARY OF TERMS:

Title of Notes:                6.50% Subordinated Notes Due February 15, 2011
                                 (the "Notes").

Aggregate
  Principal Amount:            $5,000,000.00.

 Price to Public:              99.750%.

 Issue Date:                   February 22, 1996.

 Stated Maturity Date:         February 15, 2011.

 Interest Rate:                6.50%.

 Interest Payment Dates:       Semi-annually, on the 15th day of each February
                               and August, commencing on August 15, 1996, and at
                               Stated Maturity.

 Regular Record Dates:         The first day of the month in which each Interest
                               Payment Date occurs.

 Sinking Fund:                 None.

 Redemption:                   The Notes are not subject to redemption.

 Selling Agent:                J.W. Korth & Co.

 Agent's Commission:           0.971%.

 Minimum Denomination:         $1,000.

 CUSIP Number:                 17303 MET 2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,242
<SECURITIES>                                    14,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                       415
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,793
<PP&E>                                       1,301,962
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,327,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,319
<BONDS>                                        513,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           552
<OTHER-SE>                                     628,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,327,132
<SALES>                                        347,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,279
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,855
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,806
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,806
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q

                          MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS


          All of Registrant's railroad properties are on long-term lease
to Norfolk and Western Railway Company for the fixed, unvarying amount
of $915,000 cash rental per year. The lease also requires that
additional, large amounts be recorded as non-cash rent income.

          With fixed revenue and expenses relatively constant, there is
very little fluctuation in operating results between periods. In
comparing the third quarter of 1998 with the preceding second quarter
1998 and the third quarter of 1998, revenues totaled $229,000, $229,000
and $229,000, respectively. Net income and income available for
distribution was $209,000, $204,000 and $208,000, respectively.


PART II.  OTHER INFORMATION

Item 6.   Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K
          
          None



                              SIGNATURES
 

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                              PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD



                                                                 
    11/10/98                  Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
      Date                    (Signature)
                              Chairman of the Board


                                                                 
    11/10/98                  Robert A. Hamstead
      Date                    (Signature)
                              Secretary and Treasurer

November 10, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.2



                       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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company,
serving as Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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; 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: November 13, 2007                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Portsmouth Square, Inc. and will be retained by Portsmouth
Square, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
EXHIBIT 10.13



 




Exhibit 10.13




THE KEITH COMPANIES, INC.




SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF 2005 DISCRETIONARY CASH BONUS PLAN



     
On March 4, 2005, the Compensation Committee adopted a
discretionary cash bonus plan. Executive officers are eligible
to participate in the discretionary bonus plan. Under the
discretionary plan, the Compensation Committee may award annual
cash bonuses to executive officers if the Company meets or
exceeds a financial performance target established by the
Compensation Committee with respect to any year. At its meeting
on March 4, 2005, the Compensation Committee established a
performance target for 2005 based on income from operations
(after taking into account any amounts paid under the
discretionary bonus plan for the year). Whether any bonus is
awarded, and the amount of any bonus awarded, is at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee once the Company has
met or exceeded its financial performance target.