alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.53

        EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

        Each year, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors considers whether to alter the base salary of our executive officers. In addition, the Compensation Committee determines whether to award our executive officers a bonus for the fiscal year, based on pre-established individual and corporate performance objectives. 

        Listed below are the salaries and bonuses for our executive officers that were awarded during fiscal 2004 and the salaries that have been established for fiscal 2005. Bonuses for fiscal 2005 have not yet been determined.

	 


	Executive Officer		2004 Salary	 	2004 Bonus (1)	 	 	2005 Salary	 
	
	 	

         		

         		

         	
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Harvey J. Berger, M.D. 

      Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief Executive 

      Officer and President 	 	$	480,000	 	$	0	 	$	504,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Laurie A. Allen, Esq. 

      Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary 	 	$	265,000	 	$	90,000	 	$	288,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	David L. Berstein, Esq. 

      Senior Vice President, Chief Patent Counsel	 	$	275,000	 	$	90,000	 	$	288,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Timothy P. Clackson, Ph.D. 

      Senior Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer	 	$	262,000	 	$	90,000	 	$	290,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Edward M. Fitzgerald 

      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and 

      Treasurer	 	$	262,000	 	$	90,000	 	$	288,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	John D. Iuliucci, Ph.D. 

      Senior Vice President, Chief Development Officer   	 	$	275,000	 	$	90,000	 	$	290,000	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Camille L. Bedrosian, M.D. 

      Vice President, Chief Medical Officer	 	$	260,000	 	$	95,000	 	$	290,000	 
											


	 	 
	(1)	These bonuses were awarded and deferred under our 1997 Executive Compensation Plan, a non-qualified, unfunded, deferred compensation plan. 


	

        29
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)        May 15, 2006

<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
 Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WILLIS ELECTRIC CO., LTD.,

Appellant

v.

EVERSTAR MERCHANDISE CO., LTD.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1870

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

01485.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PATRICK M. ARENZ, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, 

MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by BRENDA L.

JOLY. 

 BRENTON R. BABCOCK, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by PRESTON 

HAMILTON HEARD, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Atlanta, GA; BARRY J. HERMAN, Baltimore, MD; TYLER TRAIN, 

Irvine, CA. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1870 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2022
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 10, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1870 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2022
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 1996 with the preceding second quarter
 1996 and the third quarter of 1995, revenues totaled $229,000, $229,000
 and $230,000, respectively. Net income and income available for
 distribution was $205,000, $207,000 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



                                                                 
        11/06/96              Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
         Date                 (Signature)
                              Chairman of the Board


                                                                 
        11/06/96              Robert A. Hamstead
         Date                 (Signature)
                              Secretary and Treasurer


November 6, 1996
| 1. | Such      Yearly Report of Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year      ended December 31, 2008, fairly represents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Northeast Automotive      Holdings, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 15, 2009                           |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   |
| Northeast      Automotive Holdings,  Inc. |
|                                                |   |
| By:                                            | /s/ William      Solko |
| William      SolkoChief      ExecutiveOfficer       |

----
#### Michael P. Looney, Appellant, v Fran Hirsch Development, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Patlow, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 711 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                May 28 (legislative day, May 27), 2021.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
711) entitled ``An Act to amend the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 
2016 to authorize the use of certain funds received pursuant to leases 
entered into under such Act, and for other purposes.'', do pass with 
the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            At the end, add the following:

SEC. 5. INCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT OF REVENUE EXPENDITURES AND DIRECT 
              BENEFITS TO VETERANS IN ANNUAL REPORT.

    Section 2(j)(2) of the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 (Public 
Law 114-226; 130 Stat. 929) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
        inserting a semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph (B):
                    ``(B) an assessment of--
                            ``(i) the manner in which such revenue is 
                        expended; and
                            ``(ii) the direct benefits such 
                        expenditures provide to veterans; and''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H.R. 711

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
Exhibit 10.477


 


ASSIGNMENT


 


This
Assignment is made as of the
23rd day of December, 2004 by INLAND REAL ESTATE
ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation (“Assignor”) to and for
the benefit of INLAND WESTERN PANAMA CITY, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


Assignor
does hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto Assignee all of
its right, title and interest as Buyer under into that certain Agreement of
Sale for the purchase and sale of a Shopping Center dated as of November 19,
2004, as amended and entered into by Kimco Panama City, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, as Seller, and Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the “Agreement”),
for the sale and purchase of the property described by the Agreement, located
in Panama City, Florida.


 


Assignor
represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement, and that it
has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in any way to
any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts the
foregoing assignment and agrees, from and after
the date hereof, to (i) perform all of the obligations of Buyer under the
Agreement, and (ii) indemnify, defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from
and against all claims and liabilities arising under the Agreement.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as of the
date first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE
  ACQUISITIONS, INC.

  an Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Jason A. Lazarus

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   Jason A. Lazarus

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  As Its:

  	
  V.P.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND WESTERN PANAMA
  CITY, L.L.C.,

  a Delaware limited liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: Inland Western
  Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc.,

  a Maryland corporation, its sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  As Its:

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]
# IP_NSA
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANDREW GEORGE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1394

[May 25, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502018CF005193.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Donald Ray MORRISON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 23, 1972.

Gary L. Schneider, Covington, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., John M. Famularo, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

EDWARD P. HILL, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of selling a dangerous drug (marijuana) in violation of KRS 217.731(4). His punishment was fixed at 5 years in prison.

Reduced to essentials, appellant’s only argument is that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to convict.

After an examination of the record, we find appellant’s argument so unmeritorious that we shall point out only some of the abundant evidence on the question of guilt.

The evidence discloses these facts: On May 19, 1971, State Detectives William Kline and James Wells, members of the State Police assigned to the Narcotics Unit, visited the “Downstairs Club,” a night club in Kenton County, Kentucky, apparently looking for “dope pushers.” Kline was introduced to appellant by a Mr. Kessling, who told appellant that Kline was “all right” and for appellant “to take care of him.” After some few words, Kline and appellant left the club for the parking lot where appellant got a sack of marijuana from an orange colored Barracuda automobile and sold it to Kline for $15. The license number of the car was recorded by Kline, and after investigation it was found that the car belonged to the appellant’s father.

Although appellant’s brother was present in the night club and resembled the appellant, Officer Kline positively identified the appellant as the person who sold him the dope.

Detective Wells also identified appellant and observed the bag containing marijuana when Kline returned to the club with same. Wells also checked the Ohio license on the orange Barracuda.

Competent evidence was presented showing that the contents of the bag which Kline said he purchased from the appellant was marijuana.

Appellant and his brother, Kenneth, denied all of this. Under our system, a jury issue was presented. Clearly the verdict of the jury was amply supported by the evidence. See Hack v. Commonwealth, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 216 (1967), and Carr v. Commonwealth, 307 Ky. 207, 210 S.W.2d 778 (1948).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 70

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking
2

•HJ 70 EH

1 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu

2 thereof ‘‘November 16, 2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 25,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 70

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.
#### STILLE & YARBROUGH, Limited, v. MILLER.

No. 4639.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1933.

D. C. Scarborough, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Stephens & Gahagan, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

■ This suit involves only issues of fact, being brought *upon an open account*amounting *to*$126.83, for merchandise sold and delivered.

Plaintiff, in support of its demand, beside the account sued on, offers in evidence itemized trade slips made out at the time of purchase and signed by the party making the sale, and the sworn testimony of each seller that he personally sold and delivered the items covered by the slips. The balance of $4.33 brought forward from 1929 is not itemized and is only proven by the testimony of one witness that such a balance existed. Miller claims that the 1929 account was fully paid.

There appears on the account for 1931 items aggregating $5.20, which Mr. Yarbrough admits, and the slips show, were purchased by defendant’s grown-sons. Yarbrough’s statement that he understood they were to be so charged is met by the positive testimony of defendant that he never authorized such charges. The account shows an allowance of $1.75 for some cotton seed and- a charge of $2 for a draw knife, which defendant a'nd a son testify was purchased and paid for by the *432son. The allowance of these credits reduces the account to $113.55.

 The positive evidence of plaintiff as to all other items is met by the vague testimony of Miller alone that he only owed about $30. He admits that he did a partly cash and partly credit business with plaintiff, and that, when cash was paid, he was given the receipted slips. He produces no such receipts. He could not point out on the account what particular items he claimed to have paid. Such uncertain testimony cannot prevail over the positive evidence of plaintiff, who is only called upon to prove his case by a preponderance of the testimony.

The judgment appealed from by plaintiff allowing it $30, with 5 per cent, per annum interest from April 11, 1929, is amended by increasing the amount to $113.55, with 5 per cent, per annum interest from April 10, 1931, and all costs of both courts. As amended, the judgment is affirmed.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 4

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal

the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation

on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment,

thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms

an individual may serve as President.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 4 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 
of the United States Code

I, Caroline Dorsa, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.



| | /s/ Caroline Dorsa                                                                          
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Caroline DorsaPublic Service Enterprise Group IncorporatedChief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2009



---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

HENRY COBB, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-5793 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed October 9, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Charles E. Roberts, Judge. 

 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Frank D. L. Winstead, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

Affirmed. See Almond v. State, 89 So. 3d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) 

(holding that when a criminal court still has jurisdiction over a defendant whose criminal 

record mandates the court to classify him as a sexual predator, the criminal court may 

designate the defendant as a sexual predator even though the designation was 
- 2 - 

overlooked at sentencing many years earlier); Moore v. State, 880 So. 2d 826, 828-29 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (collecting cases). 

LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Gibson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated by the suppression court (Mark, J.). We add only that we have reviewed defendant’s remaining issue and found it to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1





SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

As of March 2005




     The intent of the incentive compensation plan is to align management and shareholder interests
and to provide incentives for management to increase shareholder value, make sound judgments on
allocation of capital and carry out accretive transactions.



     The amount of the cash bonuses payable under the incentive compensation plan, if any, will be
based solely upon the return on shareholders’ equity (“ROE”), defined as (i) the sum of (A) the
Company’s GAAP net income per share(1), and (B) transaction accretion/dilution per
share, divided by (ii) per share book value at the beginning of the year(2). ROE will
be expressed as a percentage.



     Under the incentive compensation plan, no payout will occur unless a minimum ROE of 5% has
been met. The amount of cash bonuses to be paid will be based on a sliding scale and will increase
as the Company’s ROE increases beyond the minimum threshold.



     Cash bonuses earned under the incentive compensation plan will be paid early in the year
following performance after financial results for the year have been determined.




	   	(1) Excludes extraordinary non-recurring items and changes in accounting treatment.
Net income will be tax affected until the
Company
    reverses its deferred tax asset
allowance.
	 
	   	(2) Excludes the deferred tax asset and any unrealized gains or losses.