alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 November 24, 2021 

[Name] 
 [Email] 

 

	 	Re:	 Incentive Grants 



Dear [First Name]: 
 This letter is intended to update you on our
plans for your Bakkt Holdings, Inc. incentive equity awards and obtain your agreement to changes in the terms communicated in your employment agreement, as highlighted below. 

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Bakkt Holdings, Inc. has approved the grant of the following awards to you under the 2021 Omnibus
Incentive Plan, promptly following and subject to the effectiveness of a registration statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: 

 

	 	•	 	 As provided by your employment agreement, a grant of [amount] restricted stock units (the “Go-Forward Award”) will be awarded as follows: 


  

	 	•	 	 fifty percent (50%) of the Go-Forward Award will be in the form of
time-based vesting restricted stock units (the “Initial RSUs”); and 


  

	 	•	 	 the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the Go-Forward Award will be in the
form of performance-based restricted stock units (the “Initial PRSUs”). 


 The Initial RSUs will vest,
subject to your continued employment with Bakkt, in three equal annual installments on the first three anniversaries of the Grant Date. Note that this is a change from your employment agreement, which provided that the Initial RSUs would vest in
three installments on the first three anniversaries of the closing date of Bakkt’s deSPAC transaction (the “Closing Date”). 

The Initial PRSUs will vest, subject to your continued employment with Bakkt, on the third anniversary of the Grant Date to the extent the
applicable performance conditions have been satisfied. Bakkt intends to define the performance conditions before the grant date. Note that this is a change from your employment agreement, which provided that the performance conditions would be
such performance conditions shall be established prior to the Closing Date. 
  

	 	•	 	 In addition to the Go-Forward Award, and in recognition of your
contributions to Bakkt during 2021, a grant of [number] restricted stock units (RSUs) (the “Merger Incentive Award”) will be awarded. Subject to your continued employment with Bakkt, the Merger Incentive Award will vest in
full on May 15, 2022. 



  
 



 

			
	www.bakkt.com    |    



  /bakkt    |    



@Bakkt    |    



 @bakktapp	  	1














 



 
  

 As stated above, both the Merger Incentive Award and the Go-Forward
Award cannot be made until, and are contingent upon, the effectiveness of a Form S-8 covering the Plan, which we anticipate filing in late December 2021. The awards are also contingent on your continued
employment with Bakkt as of the grant date. 
 Please evidence your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space provided below. We appreciate
your contributions to Bakkt! 
 Very truly yours, 
  

			
	Accepted and agreed:
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  

	Date:	 	  



  
 



 

			
	www.bakkt.com    |    



  /bakkt    |    



@Bakkt    |    



 @bakktapp	  	2
#### Nathaniel GOINES, Jr. v. Dianne B. GOINES.

No. 2011-C-0721.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Goines Jr., Nathaniel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 42,373; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-994.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1





SUBSIDIARIES of STAFF LEASING, INC. d/b/a GEVITY
HR





The legal names of several subsidiaries were changed during 2001.





Name at January 1, 2001

Name at December 31, 2001Staff Acquisition, Inc.

Staff Leasing, LLCStaff Leasing, LP

Gevity HR, LPStaff Leasing II, LP

Gevity HR II, LPStaff Leasing III, LP

Gevity HR III, LPStaff Leasing IV, LP

Gevity HR IV, LPStaff Leasing V, LP

Gevity HR V, LPStaff Leasing of Georgia, LP

Gevity HR VI, LPStaff Leasing of Georgia II, LP

Gevity HR VII, LPStaff Leasing of Georgia III, LP

Gevity HR VIII, LPStaff Leasing of Texas LP

Gevity HR IX, LPStaff Leasing of Texas II, LP

Gevity HR X, LPP. S. of New Mexico, Inc.

P. S. of New Mexico, Inc.Gevity HR ASO, LLC

Gevity HR ASO, LLCStaff Insurance Corp.

Staff Insurance Corp.Staff Insurance, Inc.

Staff Insurance, Inc.




1
FRANKIE SILVESTRI,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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. 1D17-2692

Opinion filed August 15, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Frankie Silvestri, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 

2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

This Court reserves jurisdiction to consider the imposition of sanctions.

ROWE, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                               Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                Three and Nine Months Ended March 31, 2000 and 1999

                                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)



                                                          Three months ended               Nine months ended
                                                               March 31,                        March 31,
                                                      ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                                          2000           1999             2000            1999
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income ......................................     $     3,224     $     2,908     $     9,629     $     8,577
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued ................      11,900,000      11,900,000      11,899,790      11,900,000
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury       3,379,164       3,106,278       3,196,297       2,831,653
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP ........         952,000         952,000         952,000         952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
           released during the fiscal year ......         463,749         368,814         439,508         346,174
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average basic shares ...................       8,032,585       8,210,536       8,191,001       8,462,521
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents .......         508,033         640,822         492,855         637,714
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average diluted shares .................       8,540,618       8,851,358       8,683,856       9,100,235
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Earnings per common share:
         Basic ..................................     $      0.40     $      0.35     $      1.18     $      1.01
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
         Diluted ................................     $      0.38     $      0.33     $      1.11     $      0.94
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, Cartilage Aging and Osteoarthritis.                     

*Date:*                         October 28, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Elaine Lewis, PhD, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7707,                         *elainelewis@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 30, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-25183 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

HERITAGE OAKS BANCORP

 

Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB

for the Quarter ended March 31, 2003

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage OaksBancorp (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form10QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which thisCertification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements ofSection 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information containedin this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 6, 2003 | /s/ Margaret A. Torres                                 |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Margaret A. Torres                                     |
|                     | Executive Vice President and  Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
A93A0201.

#### FOSTER v. THE STATE.

(431 SE2d 400)

Johnson, Judge.

Willie James Foster appeals from his conviction of possession of cocaine and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

1. Foster contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the cocaine because it was seized pursuant to an illegal detention. “As a general rule, a police officer is authorized to make a brief, investigatory detention of an individual where the intrusion can be justified by specific, articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. What is demanded of the police officer, as the agent of the state, is a founded suspicion, some necessary basis from which the court can determine that the detention was not arbitrary or harassing.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Hadaway v. State,*190 Ga. App. 5 (1) (378 SE2d 127) (1989). Here, the police officer testified at the suppression hearing that he received a call that illegal drug activity was taking place on Ninth Street behind Bush & Bush Cafe. After entering the area, the officer observed Foster rapidly walking down Ninth Street. The officer knew Foster and was aware that he had a prior drug conviction. The officer pulled his police car alongside Foster and asked to speak with him. Foster told the officer that he had not done anything, dropped a black leather bag on the ground and ran. The officer got out of his car, retrieved the bag and apprehended Foster. In the bag, the officer found cocaine. The officer arrested Foster and charged him with possession of cocaine.

Under these circumstances, the officer’s brief detention of Foster was justified by specific articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of criminal conduct. A police officer is permitted to conduct a brief investigatory stop “where the officer observes unusual conduct which, when viewed in the light of his experience, causes him to conclude that the individual is involved in criminal activity.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Clark v. State,*183 Ga. App. 838, 839 (1) (360 SE2d 447) (1987). The trial court did not err in denying Foster’s motion to suppress.

2. Foster contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because of conflicts in the testimony of the State’s witnesses. It is well settled that the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are questions for the jury. *Willis v. State,*201 Ga. App. 182, 183 (410 SE2d 377) (1991). Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that there was sufficient evidence such that a rational trier of fact could have found Foster guilty of possession of cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, J., and Senior Appellate Judge John W. Sognier concur.*

*700Decided April 27, 1993 —

Reconsideration denied May 25, 1993.

*Lindsey & Jacobs, Tamara Jacobs,*for appellant.

*Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, James L. Wright III, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.
Opinion filed June 21, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00244-CV

__________

KEITH THOMAS, Appellant

V.

SHERRY DICKINSON ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 259th District Court

Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 022488

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a final judgment signed on July 13, 2011. We dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution.

The clerk’s record and the reporter’s record were filed in this court on April 9, 2012. 

Appellant, Keith Thomas, was notified by a written letter dated April 13, 2012, that his brief was 

due for filing on or before May 14, 2012. Appellant did not file his brief on or before May 14, 

2012. On May 29, 2012, the clerk of this court advised appellant in writing that his brief was 

past due. The clerk further informed appellant that, on its own motion, the court had granted him 
2

an extension until June 13, 2012, to file his brief. The clerk’s letter of May 29, 2012, further 

advised appellant that the failure to file his brief by June 13, 2012, might result in his appeal 

being dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 and 42. There has been 

no response to the clerk’s letter of May 29, 2012. 

The failure to timely file appellant’s brief appears to be due to appellant’s acts and 

omissions. Therefore, pursuant to Rules 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b), the appeal is dismissed for want 

of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

June 21, 2012

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                      20,850,040
<SECURITIES>                                23,110,903
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,601,219
<PP&E>                                      13,194,293
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,918,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,952,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,948,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,399
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,726,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,952,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,345,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,345,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,345,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

May 5, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00161

- CR

Brandon Jo shua VIGIL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 454th Judicial District Court

, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 06

- 13648

- CR Honorable Daniel J. Kindred , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant was initially represented by Courtney Dailey, court

- appointed counsel from the Hill Country Regional Public Defender’s Office. On April 26, 2022

, retained counsel Daniel De La Garza and Dayna L. Jones filed notice s of appearance to represent Appellant on appeal

. Subsequently, Courtney Dailey filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel.
Courtney Dailey’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

We direct t he clerk of t his court to update this court’s records accordingly.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of May, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
HMN Financial, Inc.
                    Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                   (Unaudited)


                                       Three Months          Nine Months
Computation of Earnings               Ended Sept 30,        Ended Sept 30,
Per Common Share:                   1998         1997      1998        1997    
                                ----------------------- ----------------------
Weighted average number of 
 common shares outstanding used
 in basic earnings per common 
 share calculation              4,625,803    5,533,211  5,038,496   5,532,155

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options                                0      348,039    358,514     293,476
 Restricted stock awards                0       74,009     54,344      79,007
                                ---------    ---------  ---------   ---------
Weighted average number of shares 
 outstanding adjusted for effect 
 of dilutive securities         4,625,803    5,955,259  5,451,354   5,904,637
                                =========    =========  =========   =========
Income available to common 
 shareholders                   $(434,240)   1,524,111  2,013,145   4,330,812

Basic earnings per common share $   (0.09)        0.28       0.40        0.78

Diluted earnings per common 
 share                          $   (0.09)        0.26       0.37        0.73


The earnings per share calculations reflected above are presented as if the
split had been completed at the beginning of each period presented for the
weighted average number of shares outstanding for each period.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7346 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7346

 To provide for the compensation of Federal contractor employees that 
  may be placed on unpaid leave as a result of the Federal Government 
                   shutdown, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2018

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the compensation of Federal contractor employees that 
  may be placed on unpaid leave as a result of the Federal Government 
                   shutdown, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Low-Wage Federal Contractor Employee 
Back Pay Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FURLOUGHED FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES.

    Title VII of Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2018 (Public Law 115-141) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new section:
    ``Sec. 750.  If a Federal contractor that provides retail, food, 
custodial, or security services to the Federal Government places the 
employees of such contractor on unpaid leave as a result of any lapse 
in appropriations which begins in fiscal year 2019, the Government 
shall provide compensation to such employees at their standard rate of 
compensation for the period of such lapse.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.3


                        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 Liberty Property Limited
Partnership (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, WILLARD G. ROUSE, III, Chief Executive Officer
of Liberty Property Trust (the sole general partner of Liberty Property
Limited Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
based on 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 result of operations
of the Company.



/s/ WILLARD G. ROUSE, III
-----------------------------------
Willard G. Rouse, III
Chief Executive Officer