alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

HYPERION SOLUTIONS CORPORATION

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

(as amended and restated as of November 10, 2003)




     WHEREAS, Hyperion Solutions Corporation (the “Corporation”) maintains the Employee Share
Purchase Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), to promote the interests of the Corporation by providing
eligible employees with the opportunity to acquire a proprietary interest in the Corporation
through participation in a payroll-deduction based employee stock purchase plan designed to qualify
under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;



     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Article of the Plan entitled “Effective Date and Term of the Plan,”
the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) is vested with the authority to modify
certain terms of the Plan, including extending the term of the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Corporation now deems it expedient to extend the term of the Plan until May 1,
2006.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective March 1, 2005, by deleting Paragraph B.
of the Article of the Plan entitled “Effective Date and Term of the Plan” and inserting the
following as Paragraph B.:



     “B. Unless sooner terminated by the Board, the Plan shall terminate upon the earliest of (i)
May 1, 2006, (ii) the date on which all shares available for issuance under the Plan shall have
been sold pursuant to purchase rights exercised under the Plan or (iii) the date on which all
purchase rights are exercised in connection with a Corporate Transaction (unless the Plan is
continued or assumed by the surviving corporation after such Corporate Transaction). No further
purchase rights shall be granted or exercised, and no further payroll deductions shall be
collected, under the Plan following its termination.”
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6933 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6933

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require reporting relating to 
                    certain cost-share requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2022

  Mr. Obernolte (for himself and Mr. Foster) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 
                               Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require reporting relating to 
                    certain cost-share requirements.

    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 ``Cost-Share Accountability Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 988 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the enactment of 
the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2022, and at least quarterly 
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology and Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and 
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and shall make publicly 
available, a report on the use by the Department during the period 
covered by the report of the authority to reduce or eliminate cost-
sharing requirements provided by subsections (b)(3) or (c)(2).''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus WAYNELY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:99-cr-00075; 1:03-cv-00111) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Waynely Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*To the extent Brown may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. (continued...) - 2 - PER CURIAM: Waynely Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his Rule 60(b) motion challenging the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for clarification. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to place the case in abeyance. 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. ** (...continued) § 2255 (2000) motion in order to raise claims under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)and Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), we deny authorization. - 3 - DISMISSED
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23

- BG

- 0 481

IN RE PETER G. ANGELOS

, DDN : 0 47

- 23

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 417859

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge

.

O R D E R (FILED

— August 10, 2023)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland transferring respondent to disability inactive status by consent ; this court’s June 16 , 2023 , order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing

him to show cause why he should not be suspended based upon a disability pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13 ; and the state ment of Disciplinary Counsel , in which he requests that responden t’s reins tatement be conditioned upon his reinstatement in Maryland ; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C . Bar
R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit; and it further appearing that respondent has not opposed the proposed reinstatement con dition, it is

ORDERED that Peter G. Angelos is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13 (e) with

r einstatement conditioned upon his reinstatement in the state of Maryland

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable

presum ption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate) ; In re Stanley , 769 A.2d 141 (D.C. 2001) (disability suspension is the functional equivalent of inactive status based on disability). It isNo. 23

- BG

- 0 481

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
#### The State of Missouri, Defendant in Error, v. David A. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

February 10, 1891.

Criminal Law: dramshops : permitting minors to plat. Revised Statutes, 1889, section 4588, prohibit a dramshop-keeper from permitting a minor to play at the game of pool in his dramshop without the consent in writing of the minor’s father; the verbal consent of the father does not constitute any defense to an information against a dramshop-keeper for the violation of that prohibition.

*Error to the. Iron Circuit Court.*— Hon. John L. Thomas, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Benton &*Edgar, for plaintiff in error.

*J. S.*Jordan, for defendant in error.

Thompson, J.

This was an indictment under section 5454 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, as amended by the act of March 31, 1885 (R. S. 1889, sec. 4588), *85against a dramshop-keeper for permitting a minor to play the game of pool in his dramshop without the-written consent of the parent of such minor. The case was, by consent, tried before the court without a jury. At the trial it was admitted that the defendant was a dramshop-keeper ; that the person named in the indictment was a fninor, and that he had been permitted by the defendant to play the game of pool in the defendant’s dramshop without the *written*consent of his father. But it was also admitted that he had the *verbal*consent of his father that he might so play. Upon this evidence the court adjudged the defendant guilty, sentenced him to pay a fine, and he prosecutes a writ of error to this court. He has assigned no errors in this court, nor has he filed a statement or brief, nor has the prosecuting attorney. We, therefore, proceed, under the mandate of the statute (R. S. 1889, sec. 4297) to render judgment upon the record before us. Our judgment is that the conviction be affirmed. The statute is very explicit. It requires that “ *the written permission*of the parent, master or guardian of such minor” be first had and obtained. The statute cannot be frittered away by substituting a verbal for a written permission. That would lead to endless disputes upon the question, whether the permission of the parent had been given. Criminal statutes are construed strictly in favor of the accused ; but they are nevertheless statutes of public policy, and the courts have no authority to set them aside where their terms are plain and direct. There is no *equity*in such statutes which enables the courts to deal with them in such a sense.

The judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All the judges concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20677]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker License Due to Death of 
the License Holder

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual 
Customs broker license and any and all permits have been cancelled due 
to the death of the broker:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Name                 License No.            Port name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn L. Wensveen............             21714  Great Falls
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Daniel Baldwin,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. E8-20677 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|             |  |                                            
|------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|             |  | /s/ Paul J. Evanson                        
|May 10, 2005 |  | Paul J. Evanson Principal Executive
Officer
Page 1 of 26

 

FORM 10-Q

 

 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

 

 

Quarterly Report under Section 13 or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

 

For Quarter Ended June 30, 2002

Commission File Number 1-3376-2

 

 

THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Maryland and Virginia
13-5323955
(State(s) of Incorporation)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

 

 

10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-1766

Telephone Number - 301-790-3400

 

 

 

 

     The registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

     At August 14, 2002, 22,385,000 shares of the Common Stock (no par value) of the registrant were outstanding, all of which are held by Allegheny Energy, Inc., the Company's parent.
**2**
 
**THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY

Form 10-Q for Quarter Ended June 30, 2002**
 

 

 

 
**Index

 

 
** 

 

PART I-FINANCIAL INFORMATION:**Page No.
Item 1. Financial Statements
Consolidated Statement of Operations -******
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Robert G. Dutcher, Chief
Executive Officer of Possis Medical, Inc., certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Possis Medical, Inc.




Date: June 14, 2004                                 /s/Robert G. Dutcher
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert G. Dutcher
                                                    Chairman, President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



                                       26
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF KARLON KIDDER, BAR 

### NO. 11622. No. 68964 

# ALE
JAN 0 71
Ipktip:( 

# i CLERK „IP P._ . „., n

t.,K. , - ,t--;....• L L ,
CE-HE 'EP 

### ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA This is an automatic review of a Northern Nevada

Disciplinary Board hearing panel's recommendation that this court approve, pursuant to SCR 113, a conditional guilty plea agreement in exchange for a stated form of discipline for attorney Karlon Kidder. Under the agreement, Kidder admitted to violations of RPC 1.5 (fees), RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), RPC 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), RPC 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants), RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and RPC 8.4 (misconduct).

The agreement provides for a one-year suspension with the last nine months stayed, subject to the following conditions: (1) Kidder shall execute and comply with the mentoring agreement, which shall be in effect for two years; and (2) he shall not make any appearance in any federal court for six months after approval of the suspension by the Nevada Supreme Court. Further, Kidder shall pay $750 to the State Bar for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the guilty plea agreement should be approved. 

### See SCR 113(1). We hereby impose a one-year suspension with the last nine months of the suspension stayed.

(0) 1947A 

### e 

### )Lo 

## - 035.27)-1Douglas

"Etta Additionally, Kidder must comply with all of the conditions in the plea agreement, as outlined above. Kidder and the State Bar shall comply with the applicable provisions of SCR 121.1 and SCR 115 arid 116, if necessary.

It is so ORDERED.

DOUGLAS and SAITTA, JJ., dissenting:

We would reject the conditional guilty plea agreement because the agreed-upon discipline is not sufficient.

, J.

cc: Chair, Northern Nevada Disciplinary Panel C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada The Kidder Law Group, Ltd. Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I907A 

# 7 .tatiq kr



# ati t!
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 700 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 700

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ``Lawrence 
                  M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2021

 Mr. Foster (for himself and Mr. Rush) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, as the ``Lawrence 
                  M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LAWRENCE M. ``LARRY'' WALSH SR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 303 East Mississippi Avenue in Elwood, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lawrence M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lawrence 
M. `Larry' Walsh Sr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.22


 


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS COMPENSATION TERM SHEET


 


Non-employee
directors of Websense, Inc. receive the following fees for each meeting of the
Board of Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors attended by each
director:


 


	
  Meeting

  	
   

  	
  In Person Attendance

  	
   

  	
  Telephonic Meeting

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Board of
  Directors

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit
  Committee (non-chairman)

  	
   

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit
  Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  3,500

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation
  Committee (non-chairman)

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  	
  500

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation
  Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  
	
  Nominating
  and Governance Committee Chairman

  	
   

  	
  1,000

  	
   

  	
  500

  	
   

  
	
  Special
  project ad hoc committees

  	
   

  	
  500

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  
								



 


Meeting
fees are paid quarterly in arrears. 
Websense does not pay directors an annual retainer.  Websense reimburses non-employee directors
for their reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of
Directors and committees.


 


Under the Automatic Option
Grant Program in effect under our 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, each individual
who first joins the Board of Directors as a non-employee director anytime after
March 28, 2000 will receive, on the date of such initial election or
appointment, an automatic option grant to purchase 50,000 shares of our common
stock, provided that such person has not previously been one of our
employees.  In addition, on the date of
each Annual Stockholders meeting held after March 28, 2000, each
individual who continues to serve as a non-employee director will automatically
be granted an option to purchase 2,500 shares of our common stock, provided
such individual has served as a non-employee director for at least six months
prior to such meeting.


 


Websense reserves the
right to change these terms and/or this Term Sheet from time to time as it
feels necessary to accomplish its goals.
JERRY GALLION , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 13

- 2905

__________ ___________________/ Opinion filed December 9, 2014. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mallory D. Cooper, Judge

. Jerry Gallion, pro se , Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney General, Tal lahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Jerry Gallion, appeals an order denying his postconviction relief motion which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We
find no er ror in the trial court’s denial of relief as to Grounds 1, 3, and 6 following an evidentiary hearing. However , because the trial court summarily deniedGrounds 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 without attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims, a fact acknowledged by the State, we reverse and remand with instructions that the court either attach such portions of the record or hold an evidentiary hearing on the claims. See Wainwright v. State , 896 So. 2d 695, 698 (Fla. 2004) (noting that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief claim unless the motion and record conclusively show that he or she is entitled to no relief or where the claim is legally insufficient); Simmons v.
State , 66 So. 3d 327, 327

- 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing for record attachments or for an evidentiary hearing where the trial court failed to assemble a record from which it could be conclusively determined that the appellant was not entitled to any relief on his facially sufficient rule 3.850 claim) ; Washington v. State , 10 So. 3d
1 126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“ If the postconviction defendant’s claims are legally sufficient, the trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claims.” ). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions. LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

2