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








TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION
2020 INDUCEMENT PLAN
		
	1.
	PURPOSE OF PLAN


The purpose of this Tupperware Brands Corporation 2020 Inducement Plan (this “Plan”) of Tupperware Brands Corporation, a Delaware Company (the “Company”), is to promote the success and enhance the value of the Company by providing a material inducement for the best available individuals to join the Company and its subsidiaries as employees by affording such individuals an opportunity to acquire a proprietary interest in the Company.
		
	2.
	ELIGIBILITY


The Plan will be reserved solely for Awards to persons whom the Company may issue shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company (“Common Stock”) without stockholder approval pursuant to New York Stock Exchange Listing Rule 303A.08, or any successor rule relating to employment inducement awards.
		
	3.
	SHARE LIMITS; GRANT OF AWARDS


The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted to eligible persons under this Plan is 875,000 shares (the “Share Limit”), such limits to be subject to adjustment as contemplated by the Tupperware Brands Corporation 2019 Incentive Plan (as may be amended from time to time, the “2019 Incentive Plan”).
		
	4.
	EFFECTIVE DATE


This Plan is effective as of April 8, 2020, the date of its approval by the Board (the “Effective Date”). Unless earlier terminated by the Board, this Plan shall terminate at the close of business on the day before the tenth anniversary of the Effective Date. After the termination of this Plan either upon such stated expiration date or its earlier termination by the Board, no additional Awards may be granted under this Plan, but previously granted Awards (and the authority of the Committee with respect thereto, including the authority to amend the terms and conditions of such Awards) shall remain outstanding in accordance with their applicable terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of this Plan.
		
	5.
	OTHER TERMS


Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall be identical to the terms of the 2019 Incentive Plan, and such terms are incorporated by reference into this Plan (with such non-substantive changes as are necessary to reflect their usage in this Plan instead of the 2019 Incentive Plan). In the event of any conflict between the provisions in this Plan and those of the 2019 Incentive Plan, the provisions of this Plan shall govern. Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the 2019 Incentive Plan.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64691-64692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26366]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Central Idaho RAC will meet in Potlatch, Idaho. The 
committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is 
to discuss potential projects for the new fiscal year.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 4, 2010, at 10 a.m. (PST).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Potlatch Public Library, 
1010 Onaway Road, Potlatch, Idaho. Written comments should be sent to 
Laura Smith at 104 Airport Road in Grangeville, Idaho 83530. Comments 
may also be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8de1ecfee0e4f9e5cdebfea3ebe8e9a3f8fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="563a37253b3f223e16302578303332782325">[email protected]</span></a> or via facsimile to 
Laura at 208-983-4099.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Smith, Designated Forest 
Official at 208-983-5143.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. A public 
forum will begin on November 4th at 3:15 p.m. (PST). The following 
business will be conducted: Comments and questions from the public to 
the committee. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the 
attention of the Committee may file written statements

[[Page 64692]]

with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

    Dated: October 13, 2010.
Rick Brazell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-26366 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALMUSTAFA SHABAZZ, A/K/A WILLIAM BRADLEY.

November 10, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## January 03, 2022

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2022
- 01
- January 03, 2022

            - Russia’s Prichal docking module attached to the Progress delivery vehicle
            - NASA astronaut Kayla Barron seemingly juggles Christmas presents
            - Expedition 66 crew members in the station’s Russian segment
            - Expedition 66 astronauts pose for a playful portrait
            - The SpaceX Cargo Dragon approaches the space station
            - Astronaut Thomas Marshburn looks at the approaching Cargo Dragon
            - The SpaceX Cargo Dragon is pictured docked to the space station
            - The SpaceX Cargo Dragon is pictured docked to the space station
            - The James Webb Telescope Lights Up the Sky During Launch
            - Apples and Plagues: The History Behind Our Twitter Launch Today
#### JOHN V. SCALCO v. CONSTINTIN NATALIZIO, ET AL.

January 21, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 14,015.

#### Hannah *v.*Carver.

Tenants in *Common.*— Occupying *Claimant.*— Rents *and Profits.*— Account*ing.*— Improvements *Made under Claim, of Title.*— The owner of an undivided interest in land who occupies the whole estate in good faith, under claim and color of title to the whole, and has made permanent and valuable improvements under the mistaken belief that he is the owner of the whole estate, is only accountable, unless some peculiar circumstances are shown, for the fair rental value of the property, in the condition in which it was when he took possession.

From the Madison Circuit Court.

N. *S. Robinson*and *J. W. Lovett,*for appellant.

Mitchell, C. J.

— The complaint in this case proceeds upon the theory that the plaintiff and defendant were the *279owners, as tenants in common, of a certain tract of land in Madison county, upon which the defendant had entered, and the possession, use, and occupation of which he enjoyed to the entire exclusion of the plaintiff below. The relief sought was an accounting for the rental value of the oue-third of the land. The facts are in no material respect different from those set forth in *Carver*v. *Fennimore,*116 Ind. 236.

Filed Dec. 17, 1889.

The court found the facts, which are to the effect that the defendant took possession of the whole tract, under claim and color of title, and made valuable improvements, in good faith, under the belief that he owned the whole. At the time the defendant took possession the rental value of the land was nothing, but on account of the improvements made as above, the rental value of the plaintiff’s one-third was worth $114.75 over and above the value of her share of the improvements, taxes, etc. As a conclusion of law, the court stated that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum above stated. This conclusion is in conflict with the judgment in *Carver*v. *Fennimore, supra.*In that case the conclusion reached was that unless some peculiar circumstances were shown the owner of an undivided interest in land who occupies the whole estate in good faith, under claim and color of title to the whole, and has made permanent and valuable improvements under the mistaken belief that he is the owner of the whole estate, is accountable only for the fair rental value of the property in the condition in which it was when he took possession. *Early*v. *Friend,*16 Gratt. 21 (78 Am. Dec. 649); *White*v. *Stuart,*76 Va. 546; *Pickering*v. *Pickering,*63 N. H. *468; Morrison*v. *Robinson,*31 Pa. St. 456.

Adhering to the conclusion above stated, it follows that the judgment must be reversed, with costs.
ORDER

#### In the Matter of JORGE E. CASTRO, an attorney at law.

May 25, 1987.

JORGE E. CASTRO, of LYNDHURST having been ordered to show cause before this Court on May 4, 1987 why his temporary suspension from the practice of law, imposed by order of this Court dated April 20, 1987 should not be *653continued pending the final disposition of the ethics complaints against him, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the temporary suspension from the practice of law of JORGE E. CASTRO is hereby continued pending the final disposition of the ethics complaints against him and until the further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics continue to take such protective action pursuant to #.l:20-ll(c), as may be appropriate, pending further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, presently existing in any New Jersey financial institution including but not limited to attorney trust account no. 710787-0 maintained at the Howard Savings Bank, in North Arlington, New Jersey 07032, and any other accounts maintained by respondent pursuant to #.1:21-6 shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of the suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL K. JOHNSON.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**Salaries and Bonuses of NamedExecutive Officers**

 

The following table sets forth for each person identified as a NamedExecutive Officer in the Company’s Proxy Statement for its 2005 Annual Meetingof Stockholders the discretionary bonuses for 2004 and annual salarieseffective January 1, 2005 approved by the Compensation Committee of the Boardof Directors in December 2004 and January 2005:

 
| **Name  of Executive Officer** | ** ** | **Bonus for 2004** | ** ** | **Salary for 2005** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|
|                           |       |               |       |                |       |
| Leonard P.  Shaykin*           |       | $                  | 140,000    |                | $          | 370,000 |   |
| Martin Batt                    |       | $                  | 120,000    |                | $          | 270,000 |   |
| Patricia A.  Pilia*            |       | $                  | 60,000     |                | $          | 235,000 |   |
| Gordon Link*                   |       | $                  | 100,000    |                | $          | 240,000 |   |
| Anne L. Bailey                 |       | $                  | 100,000    |                | $          | 205,000 |   |
| Kai P. Larson*                 |       | $                  | 75,000     |                | $          | 220,000 |   |

 

----

*                                         Messrs.Shaykin, Link and Larson and Dr. Pilia are each party to an employmentagreement with the Company for which the most recent bonus and current basesalary of such party determines the amount to be paid by the Company to that partyfollowing a change of control of the Company upon termination of employment bythe Company without cause or resignation by the employee with good reason.

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Russell C. Mix, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on 10-QSB for the quarter ended June30, 2004 of Spectre Gaming, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ Russell C. Mix  By: Russell C. Mix President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41508 Summary Calendar

ALFREDO ANTONIO IRUEGAS-MACIEL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JONATHON DOBRE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CV-226

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Antonio Iruegas-Maciel (Iruegas), federal inmate # 37644-079, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Iruegas’ claim that he was denied due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing is without merit since the disciplinary proceedings complied with the requirements set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 556-57 (1974). Additionally, Iruegas’ claim that prison officials failed to follow their own policies, without more, doesNo. 02-41508 -2- not constitute a violation of due process. Myers v. Klevenhagen , 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s decision is therefore AFFIRMED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00109-CR 

TIMOTHY LOVINGTON, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2015-407,978, Honorable John J. "Trey" McClendon III, Presiding 

 

June 7, 2016 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant Timothy Lovington appeals his conviction for evading arrest using a 

motor vehicle. The appellate record was originally due on March 28, 2016. The clerk’s 

record was filed on March 23, 2016. On March 28, 2016, the court reporter moved for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record on the grounds that she was unable to 

complete the record due to her case load. The motion was granted, and the deadline 

was moved to April 27, 2016. Thereafter, the reporter once again moved for an 

extension. We granted the motion, but advised the reporter that no further extensions 
2

would be granted. The deadline to file the reporter’s record was extended to May 27, 

2016. The reporter has now requested a third extension to file the reporter’s record. 

Accordingly, we deny the request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record, abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the 137th District Court of Lubbock 

County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall 

immediately determine, through hearing or otherwise, when the reporter’s record can 

reasonably be transcribed into written form and filed in a manner that does not further 

delay the prosecution of this appeal or have the practical effect of depriving the 

appellant of his right to appeal. 

The trial court shall 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing 

the foregoing issue and 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a 

result of its resolution of the foregoing inquiry. Additionally, the trial court shall then 

cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or 

before July 7, 2016. Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these 

tasks, then same must be requested before July 7, 2016. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
# Sitemap

## December 21, 2023

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2023
- 12
- December 21, 2023

            - NASA Flies Drones Autonomously for Air Taxi Research
            - NASA Astronauts Test SpaceX Elevator Concept for Artemis Lunar Lander
            - Artemis II Crew Visits White House
            - As the Arctic Warms, Its Waters Are Emitting Carbon
            - Kennedy Space Center Looks Ahead to a Busy Year in 2024
            - Going the Extra 500 miles for Alaskan River Ice
            - Scientists and Students Discuss the Future of Space Research at ASGSR Annual Conference
            - NASA’s Hubble Watches ‘Spoke Season’ on Saturn
            - NASA Stennis Internship Brings Aerospace Industry to Life
            - Flight 70 Preview – By the Numbers
# OFFICIAL PORTRAIT – STS-9 CREW

S83-35017 (June 1983) --- These six men represent the first crewmembers to man the Columbia when it gets reactivated later this year.  The four NASA astronauts are joined by a European and MIT scientist payload specialist and the Spacelab module and experiment array for STS-9.  On the front row are Astronauts Owen K. Garriott, mission specialist; Brewster H. Shaw, Jr., pilot; John W. Young, commander; and Robert A. R. Parker, mission specialist.  Byron K. Lichtenberg of the Massachusetts of Technology, left and Ulf Merbold of the Republic of West Germany and the European Space Agency stand in front of an orbital scene featuring the Columbia.  Columbia was used for the first five Space Transportation System missions in 1981 and 1982.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s83-35017/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJune 29, 1983ProducerJSCSize1920x1535pxPIA NumberS83-35017The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 10, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6058 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY LEE JACKSON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CR-03-431; CA-04-22739-7)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 6, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Lee Jackson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Henry Lee Jackson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 proceeding 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
# Sitemap

## November 12, 2009

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2009
- 11
- November 12, 2009

            - NASA’s Global Hawks
            - NASA’s Global Hawks
            - NASA’s Global Hawks
            - NASA’s Global Hawks
            - Rogers Dry Lake and Leuhman Ridge: Backdrop for NASA’s Global Hawks
            - NASA’s Global Hawks
            - 871 and 872 on the Dryden Ramp
            - Skirting an Obstacle
            - Project Personnel After the 100th Flight, M2-F3 Lifting Body
            - Models on Lakebed with Radio-Controlled Mothership