alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Compensatory Arrangemnents with Directors & Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.24 
  
 Summary of Compensatory Arrangements with Directors and Named Executive Officers 
  
 Director Compensation. Each director who is not an officer of the Company will receive
the following compensation for his or her services as director in 2005: 
  

	 	•	 	annual compensation of $30,000; 

  

	 	•	 	$2,000 per Board meeting attended; 

  

	 	•	 	$1,000 per committee meeting attended as a member; 

  

	 	•	 	$2,000 per committee meeting attended as the chairman, except for Audit Committee chairman; 

  

	 	•	 	$4,000 per committee meeting attended as the Audit Committee chairman; 

  

	 	•	 	an annual option to acquire 5,250 shares of Common Stock; 

  

	 	•	 	an annual $2,500 Columbia Sportswear merchandise allowance; and 

  

	 	•	 	reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings. 

  
 Directors are given the opportunity to receive an option grant in lieu of the annual cash compensation. 
  
 Named Executive Officer Compensation. The Company’s executive compensation program has several elements, all determined by
individual performance and Company profitability, except for stock option grants that are intended to correlate compensation to stock price performance. 
  
 Base Salary Compensation 
  
 Base salaries for the Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers in 2005 have been established by reviewing a number of factors, including
responsibilities, experience, demonstrated performance, potential for future contributions and the level of salaries associated with similar positions at businesses that compete with the Company and other competitive factors. Base salary levels for
named executive officers in 2005 have been determined as follows: 
  

				
	 Gertrude Boyle
	  	$	715,850
	 Timothy P. Boyle
	  	 	720,000
	 Patrick D. Anderson
	  	 	360,500
	 Rick D. Carpenter
	  	 	309,000
	 Robert G. Masin
	  	 	385,982

  
 Other Compensation 

 
 In addition to his or her base salary, each of the named executive
officers is eligible to participate in the following: 
  

	 	•	 	The Executive Incentive Compensation Plan, under which cash bonuses in varying amounts may be granted based on the Company achieving pre-determined financial goals. 


  

	 	•	 	The 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, under which stock options or other equity compensation may be granted based on factors such as the level of base pay and individual performance.


  

	 	•	 	The 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (excluding Timothy P. Boyle and Gertrude Boyle). 

  

	 	•	 	The Company’s 401(k) profit-sharing plan and other health and benefit plans generally available to Company employees.
Exhibit 32.a  CERTIFICATION  I, David Morris, Principal Executive Officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: May 15, 2008/s/David Morris
David Morris
President & Chief Executive Officer
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj279

GERARDO SOTO-SIGALA, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

☒ B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a

rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant 

committed one or more of the following offenses:

☒ (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 

U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);

☒ C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above

☒ The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above, and detention is

ordered on that basis. (Part III need not be completed.)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/12/2023 s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00113-RFR-MDN Doc # 20 Filed: 05/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 30
Exhibit 10.19



         Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers
         -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        Outside of Employment Agreements
                        --------------------------------

     The following executive  officers,  expected to be named executive officers
in the  Company's  proxy  statement  for its 2005  annual  meeting,  are at will
employees  with whom the Company  does not have written  employment  agreements.
Their compensation arrangements are as follows:

Name                           Salary                    Target Bonus
-----                          ------                    ------------

Daniel McCarthy            $ 265,000                    75%  $198,800
L. Russell Mitten          $ 201,800                    50%  $100,900

In addition,  such  executive  officers are eligible to  participate  in benefit
programs  open  to our  employees  generally,  including  equity  awards  at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee of the board of directors.

          Summary of Non-Employee Directors' Compensation Arrangements
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          Outside of Formal Plans
          -----------------------


ANNUAL RETAINER FEE
On  January 1 of each  year he or she  serves on the  board,  each  non-employee
director  will  receive an annual  retainer  fee of $30,000  cash of 5,000 stock
units. Each  non-employee  director must irrevocable elect by December 31 of the
prior year whether to receive his or her retainer in cash or units.

MEETING FEES
Each  non-employee  director will receive $2,000 for his or her participation in
each board and committee  meeting.  Each  Committee  Chair and the Lead Director
will  receive  an  additional   annual  stipend,   payable  in  equal  quarterly
installments  on  the  first  business  day of the  succeeding  quarter,  in the
following amounts:

        Lead Director                                           $20,000
        Audit Committee Chair                                   $25,000
        Compensation Committee Chair                            $15,000
        Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair     $ 7,500
        Retirement Plan Committee                               $ 5,000

Each  non-employee  director must elect by December 31 of the prior year whether
to receive his or her meeting fees and chairmanship stipend, when applicable, in
cash or stock units, or a combination of the two forms of compensation.
Exhibit 4.2


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated August 13, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1959 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-231484) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 13, 2019
#### SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, Beecham Group, P.L.C., and Smithkline Beecham, P.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Sumika Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd., Defendant, v. Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc., and Torpharm, Inc., Movants-Appellants.

Nos. 03-1142, 03-1143, 03-1144.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Before MICHEL, BRYSON and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

*This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### LEE v. MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. et al.

No. 6149.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 10, 1940.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1940.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a suit for compensation under the Employer’s Liability Act of this State (Act No. 20 of 1914, as amended).

Plaintiff alleged that while he and other workmen were .engaged in removing a railroad track which had been laid for temporary use by his employer, he slipped and fell on the track, seriously injuring his back and spine and has been unable to work since the said accident. He prayed for judgment for 65% of his weekly wage for a period not to exceed 400 weeks.

Defendants deny that plaintiff received any back injury while on this particular job; however, they gave him medical treatment and offered to pay him 4 weeks’ compensation, which he would not accept. They then paid the medical bills and tendered the 4 weeks’ compensation and deposited it in the Court.

The lower court rejected plaintiff’s demands, except for the amount of $62.40, which was in the Court depository. From this judgment, plaintiff has appealed.

This Court has been most liberal in carrying out the spirit of the Compensation Law and has studied this record carefully to find whether any injustice has been done to plaintiff. We have not found that any has been done.

As in most compensation cases, only questions of fact are involved and the great preponderance of medical testimony is against plaintiff, and there is no lay testimony to support his contention. We know of no good reason that could be given for disturbing the judgment of the lower court. We would be forced to take the testimony of one doctor over that of six or seven other reputable physicians to find that plaintiff received any injury to his back in the fall which he received. Furthermore, plaintiff did not complain of any injury to his back until the next day although he visited the physician that night, and complained of an injury to his toe received earlier in the day. than the time of the fall of which he complains now.

*639While it is possible that plaintiff may-have sprained his back slightly when he fell and not have known it until the next day, we think it certain that he could not have had the fracture or fractures claimed by his physician and not have known it. If plaintiff had not known it immediately after the fall, he certainly would have been aware of it during the time he was riding on a board in a vehicle for a distance of fifteen miles within one hour after having fallen, and that is what he did, without any discomfort.

There are several other legal defenses pleaded which are unnecessary to discuss.

We find no error in the judgment of the lower court and it is affirmed, with costs.
# EXHIBIT 15.1

Board of Trustees
Archstone Communities Trust

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration  Statements Nos. 333-43723,  333-44639,  333-49526,  333-51139,  333-60815,  333-60817, 333-60847,
333-68591 and 333-77387.

With respect to the subject registration  statements,  we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated May 4,  2001, related  to our  review of  interim  financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  such report is not  considered a part of a registration
statement  prepared or certified by an  accountant,  or a report  prepared or certified by an accountant  within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10007

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00028-JRH-BKE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BERNARD JOHNSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 20, 2017)

Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-10007 Date Filed: 10/20/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Brandon N. Fleming, appointed counsel for Michael Bernard Johnson in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Mr. 

Johnson and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Although the brief does not satisfy the requirements of an Anders brief, see, 

e.g., United States v. Edwards, 822 F.2d 1012, 1013 (11th Cir. 1987), our 

independent and plenary review of the entire record reveals that Mr. Fleming’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, Mr. Fleming’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mr. Johnson’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-10007 Date Filed: 10/20/2017 Page: 2 of 2
Presidential Documents

52773 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 176 

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8286 

Patriot Day, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

September 11, 2001, was etched into America’s memory when 19 terrorists 

attacked us with barbarity unequaled in our history. On Patriot Day, we 

cherish the memory of the thousands of innocent victims lost, extend our 

thoughts and prayers to their families, and honor the heroic men and women 

who risked and sacrificed their lives so others might survive. 

Since 9/11, we have recognized the threat posed by terrorists to the safety 

of the American people and worked to protect our homeland by fighting 

terrorists abroad. We are confronting terrorism by advancing freedom, liberty, 

and prosperity as an alternative to the ideologies of hatred and repression. 

Our Nation pays tribute to our courageous men and women in uniform 

serving around the world and the devoted members of our law enforcement, 

public safety, and intelligence communities at home who work night and 

day to protect us from harm and preserve the freedom of this great Nation. 

Seven years ago, ordinary citizens rose to the challenge, united in prayer, 

and responded with extraordinary acts of courage, with some giving their 

lives for the country they loved. On Patriot Day, we remember all those 

who were taken from us in an instant and seek their lasting memorial 

in a safer and more hopeful world. We must not allow our resolve to 

be weakened by the passage of time. We will meet the test that history 

has given us and continue to fight to rid the world of terrorism and promote 

liberty around the globe. 

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107–89), 

the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as ‘‘Patriot Day.’’ 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2008, as Patriot Day. I call 

upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct 

that the flag be flown at half-staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the 

people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at halfstaff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence 

beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans 

and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES5
52774 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 10, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtythird. 

[FR Doc. E8–21253 

Filed 9–9–08; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES5GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Order filed December 2, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-01019-CV

____________

NEWELL M. EVANS, Appellant

V.

THEODORE P. FULLER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-DCV-187877

ORDER

Appellant is proceeding as indigent. The court reporter responsible for 

preparing the record has informed the court that appellant has not designated the 

portions of the record he wants prepared. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b).

Accordingly, appellant is ORDERED to designate the reporter’s record in 

accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b) and provide proof of his designation to 

this court by December 9, 2015. If appellant fails to do so, we may consider and 

decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter's record. See Tex. App. 
P. 37.3(c).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32 . 1


CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U . S . C . SECTION 1350 , AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10‐K of TCR 2 Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, hereby certifies, 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 his or her 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.

Dated: March 29, 2019





/s/ Garry E. Menzel Garry E. Menzel President, Chief Executive Officer and Director


(Principal Executive Officer)





/s/ Mayur (Ian) Somaiya Mayur (Ian) Somaiya Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1008

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the

Federal Motor Carrier Administration from taking action to finalize,

implement, or enforce a rule related to the hours of service of drivers

for motor carriers, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

Mr. TERRY (for himself, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. JONES of North Carolina,

Mr. PAUL, Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. WAMP, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. STENHOLM,

Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. HERGER,

Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. POMBO, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. GARY MILLER of California, Mr.

BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BUYER, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr.

OTTER, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. RILEY, Mr. NEY, Mr. BLUNT, and Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota) introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Administration

from taking action to finalize, implement, or enforce

a rule related to the hours of service of drivers for

motor carriers, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1008 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ACTIONS TO FINALIZE, IM2 PLEMENT, OR ENFORCE RULE.

3 Neither the Secretary of Transportation nor the Ad4 ministrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis5 tration may take any action or use any funding to finalize,

6 implement, or enforce the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Hours

7 of Service of Drivers’’ published by the Federal Motor

8 Carrier Safety Administration in the Federal Register on

9 May 2, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 25539 et seq. and Docket No.

10 FMCSA 97–2350–953) and issued under the authority

11 delegated to the Administrator under section 113 of title

12 49, United States Code.

13 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROCEED THROUGH PROCESS.

14 Notwithstanding section 1, the Secretary of Trans15 portation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis16 tration may proceed through all stages of the rulemaking

17 (other than adoption of a final rule) for the proposed rule

18 referred to in section 1, including issuing a supplemental

19 notice of proposed rulemaking.

20 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE.

21 Subject to section 1, a final rule with respect to the

22 subject matter of the proposed rule referred to in section

23 1 may only take effect after the last day of the 180-day

24 period beginning on the date on which the Secretary of

25 Transportation or the Administrator of the Federal Motor
3

•HR 1008 IH

1 Carrier Safety Administration transmits to Congress a

2 copy of the final rule.

Æ