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

Exhibit 10.2


Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award Metrics for 2021


On February 10, 2021, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future performance-based restricted stock unit final awards for the 2021-2023 performance-period for participants, including executive officers, under the Company's shareholder-approved 2018 Long-Term Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Registration Statement No. 333-226348).


The performance based restricted stock unit grant is a target opportunity; however, participants will have the opportunity to earn a maximum of up to 200% of the target.  The performance based restricted stock unit grant has a three-year performance period (2021-2023), after which the Compensation Committee will determine the final award based on corporate performance-to-objectives.  The maximum performance level that can be achieved for any single metric for the 2021 Performance Unit grants is 200%.  100% of the final award will be based on financial metrics and can be modified by up to +/-25% based on relative Total Shareholder Return of Ford’s common stock compared to a peer group of companies over the three-year performance period.  The metrics and weightings are summarized below:






						
	Financial Metrics – 100%
Company Adjusted Free Cash Flow
Company Adjusted EBIT Margin
External Annual ROIC
	Weighting
50%
30%
20%

	

Total Shareholder Return
	

Modifier

	Total Shareholder Return (TSR)	+/- 25%
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wanda Perry,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04339-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9958 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NoO. 2-04-1903-117-CV

DOUGLAS GOADEDoOnN BlLaAcCkKwWoOoOdD 	APPELLANT

	V.

T.J. LAMBRECHTTrRaAmMmMeElLlL CrRoOwW CoOmMpPaAnNyY NoO. 33 LtTdD., Crow-Billingsley Midway Road South-A, Ltd., and Lucy Billingsley	APPELLEES

CrRoOwW-BiIlLlLiInNgGsSlLeEyY MiIdDwWaAyY RoOaAdD SoOuUtThH-A, LtTdD., and Lucy Billingsley

aAnNdD LuUcCyY BiIlLlLiInNgGsSlLeEyY

CONSTRUCTION, INC.	

	----------

	FROM THE 17th36n2nd362ndf   DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	ORDER.  MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	Appellant Don BlackwoodBecause a petition for bankruptcy was filed on July 23, 2004, we abated the appeal in an order dated August 19, which stated in part: 

		[F]or administrative purposes, this cause is STAYED and will be treated as a closed case.  It may be reinstated on prompt motion by any party showing that this stay has been lifted and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this court. 

 filed a petition for bankruptcy on August 28, 2003 in the Untied ited States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Texas, Plano Division, Cause No. 03-44012. , which automatically stayed this appeal. 

	Don We The We received from AaAppellant has filfoiled filed and  ““Agreed Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice.” ” and has furnished this court with a copy of ed atehhe  Don Blackwood T.J. Lambrecht Construction, the appellee, has tenderfiled ggiven an DIschd“Discharge foof dDebtor”f from the United States Bankruptcy Court entered on July 21, 2005 frorm tehthe United STatesStates Bankruptcy  Court agreed motion to reinstate the appeal.  An order entered on July 21, 2005.    discharging the appellant offrom the bankruptcy was entered on October 27,2004July 21, 2005.  .  

	The motion is Because the debtor has been granted a discharge, GRANTED.  It is ORDERED THAT that ordered this case is ordered appeal is reinstated .on this court’s docket..  The clerk’s and reporter’s record are due March 14, 2005.

    	 It is further ordered that the clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court judge, the trial court reporter and the clerk of the trial court.

	DATED February 11, 2005. 

								PER CURIAM 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	THeThe aAppellant’s motion tod  dismiss is GRANTED.   has filed an We have considered “Appellant’s AGreemdAgreed Motion tTo Dismiss for Mootnesswith With Prejudice.”  It is the court's’s opinion that appellant’s the motion to dismiss should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(12), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNRER, MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WLALKER, LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERDED:  September 8, 2005
1 ... T h i s proc ee di n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2008- W
- 0036, s t y l ed S t a t e o f T ex a s v. R u d

y A p o l i n a r , i n the 1 4 4 th Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas , t he H o no rable C at heri ne T o rr es- Stahl p res i d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 80 4- CR IN RE R u dy AP OLINAR Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 12, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON On Octobe r 30, 2008, relator Rudy Apolinar filed a petiti on for writ of m andamus see king to c omp e l th e Di str ic t Cle rk of B e xar Cou nty to p ro vid e him

wi th a c op y of the reco rd fr om h is
c r im in a l c o n v ic ti o n f

o r u s e in p u r s u in g p o s t- c o n v ic ti o n r e me d ie s . T h is c o u rt h a s no mandamus jurisdiction over a district c lerk unless the issuanc e of the writ is nece ssary t o enforce our jurisdiction. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 22.221(a) -(b) (Ve rn o n 2 0 04); In re Coronado , 980 S.W .2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig . proce eding ). B eca use we have no jurisdiction over post -convic tion writs of habe as cor pus in felony

case s, the district clerk’ s alleg ed ref usal to provide re lator with a copy of hi s rec ords does not aff ect our jurisdiction. In re O’ Brian ,04
- 08
- 00 80 4- CR

- 2- No
. 0 4 -0 4 -0 0 4 5 3
- C V , 2 0 0 4 W L1 5 6 2 1 4 8 , * 1 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o J u l y 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , o ri g. pr oc e e din g ) ( me m. o p. ); In re Coronado , 9 80 S.W. 2d a t 69 2; see also T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 11.07 (V ernon Supp. 2007). Accor dingly , rela tor’s petit ion for wr it of mandamus is dismis sed for lac k of jurisdiction. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9879-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 3
Daniel Orms

Golkow Technologies, Inc. Page 1

 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL

 2 CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 3

 4

 5 ---------------------------------§

 CLARE AUSTIN, §

 6 §

 Plaintiff, §

 7 v. §

 §

 8 C.R. BARD, INC., a foreign §

 corporation, and BARD PERIPHERAL §

 9 VASCULAR, INC., an Arizona §

 corporation, MATTHEW ROBBINS, § Case No.

 10 M.D., and CLEVELAND CLINIC § CACE-15-008373

 FLORIDA, § Div: 07

 11 §

 Defendants. §

 12

 13 -------------------------------

 - - -

 14

 AUGUST 16, 2016

 15

 - - -

 16

 17 - - -

 Videotaped deposition of DANIEL ORMS, held at

 18 Miami Marriott Dadeland, 9090 South Dadeland

 Boulevard, Miami, Florida, 33156, commencing at

 19 9:20 a.m., on the above date, before Trina B.

 Wellslager, Registered Professional Reporter and

 20 Notary Public.

 21 - - -

 22 GOLKOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax

 23 deps@golkow.com

 24

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9879-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 3
Daniel Orms

Golkow Technologies, Inc. Page 264

 1 Q. Dan, I have a few more questions for you

 2 today. The first is, where do you live?

 3 A. Here in Miami, Florida.

 4 Q. How long have you lived in Miami?

 5 A. About 40 years.

 6 Q. Forty?

 7 A. Forty. I'm sorry.

 8 Q. Do you have any children?

 9 A. Three kids.

 10 Q. Okay. Boys, girls?

 11 A. A girl twenty, a boy eighteen, girl fourteen.

 12 Q. Are you a member of any church in the

 13 community?

 14 A. Yeah, Catholic church. All three kids went to

 15 Catholic school.

 16 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me?

 17 THE WITNESS: Catholic. I'm sorry.

 18 Q. Can you briefly tell us about your

 19 educational background? I know you mentioned it a

 20 little bit earlier.

 21 A. Okay. Yeah, I went to high school here in

 22 Miami. Graduated from Miami Killian Senior High. Went

 23 to the University of Florida in Gainesville for four

 24 years, 1984 through '88, and shortly thereafter got into

8 Q. Do you have any children?

9 A. Three kids.

10 Q. Okay. Boys, girls?

11 A. A girl twenty, a boy eighteen, girl fourteen.

12 Q. Are you a member of any church in the

13 community?

14 A. Yeah, Catholic church. All three kids went to

15 Catholic school.

16 THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me?

17 THE WITNESS: Catholic. I'm sorry.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9879-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2





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 on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie Callender’s Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 18, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fred T. Grant, Jr., Chief Financial 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:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: June 7, 2010


BY:/s/ Fred T. Grant, Jr.Fred T. Grant, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), the
undersigned, James Weber, Chief Financial Officer of FalconStor Software, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
that:
  The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.




/s/  James
      WeberJames
      WeberChief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      11,
2009
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bryan Cave LLP

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

(602) 364-7000

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CMS Mechanical Services, LLC, a Florida

Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PetSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,

Defendant.

No. CV-15-02040-PHX-NVW

NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

OF ROBERT BULL

BRYAN CAVE LLP (No. 00145700)

Lawrence G. Scarborough (No. 006965) (lgscarborough@bryancave.com)

Meridyth M. Andresen (No. 021657) (mmandresen@bryancave.com)

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

Telephone: (602) 364-7000

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 74 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bryan Cave LLP

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

(602) 364-7000

To Counsel of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, defendant PetSmart,

Inc. will take the deposition by oral examination of Robert Bull under oath before an officer

authorized by law to administer oaths. The deposition will be recorded by videotape and

stenographic means.

DATE OF DEPOSITION: December 14, 2016

TIME OF DEPOSITION: 9:00 a.m.

PLACE OF DEPOSITION: First Choice Reporting

6767 North Wickham Road, Suite 400

Melbourne, Florida 32940

DATED this 7th day of December, 2016.

BRYAN CAVE LLP

By s/ Meridyth M. Andresen

Lawrence G. Scarborough

Meridyth M. Andresen

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406

Attorneys for Defendant

Filed electronically with the Court and

served on parties of record by the Court’s

CM/ECF system this 7th day of December,

2016.

s/ Mary Ann Villa

808964

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 74 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 2
exv10w4



 


Exhibit 10.4





SWINGLINE NOTE




	$10,000,000	                    , 2002



     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, VERIDIAN CORPORATION, a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware (the “Borrower”), promises to pay to the
order of WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the “Lender”), at the place and
times provided in the Credit Agreement referred to below, the principal sum of
TEN MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) or, if less, the principal
amount of all Swingline Loans made by the Lender from time to time pursuant to
that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of June 10, 2002 (as amended, restated,
supplemented or otherwise modified, the “Credit Agreement”) by and among the
Borrower, the Lenders who are or may become a party thereto (collectively, the
“Lenders”) and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent.
Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned thereto in the Credit Agreement.


     The unpaid principal amount of this Swingline Note from time to time
outstanding is subject to mandatory repayment from time to time as provided in
the Credit Agreement and shall bear interest as provided in Section 5.1 of the
Credit Agreement. Swingline Loans refunded as Revolving Credit Loans in
accordance with Section 2.2(b) of the Credit Agreement shall be payable by the
Borrower as Revolving Credit Loans pursuant to the Revolving Credit Notes, and
shall not be payable under this Swingline Note as Swingline Loans. All
payments of principal and interest on this Swingline Note shall be payable in
lawful currency of the United States of America in immediately available funds
to the account designated in the Credit Agreement.


     This Swingline Note is entitled to the benefits of, and evidences
Obligations incurred under, the Credit Agreement, to which reference is made
for a description of the security for this Swingline Note and for a statement
of the terms and conditions on which the Borrower is permitted and required to
make prepayments and repayments of principal of the Obligations evidenced by
this Swingline Note and on which such Obligations may be declared to be
immediately due and payable.


     THIS SWINGLINE NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED, CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICTS
OR CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES THEREOF.


     The Debt evidenced by this Swingline Note is senior in right of payment to
all Subordinated Debt referred to in the Credit Agreement.


     The Borrower hereby waives all requirements as to diligence, presentment,
demand of payment, protest and (except as required by the Credit Agreement)
notice of any kind with respect to this Swingline Note.








 


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Swingline Note under
seal as of the day and year first above written.





	 	VERIDIAN CORPORATION

	[CORPORATE SEAL]	





	 	By:                                              

     Name:
                                  

     Title:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-78352-D) pertaining to The UniMark Group, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock
Option Plan and The UniMark Group, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Directors of
our report dated April 19, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of The
UniMark Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1999.



                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Dallas, Texas
April 19, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001047166
<NAME> UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          34,902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,042
<INVENTORY>                                    145,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,589,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 556,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,686,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,489,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,708,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,686,031
<SALES>                                        578,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               578,962
<CGS>                                          125,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  372,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (204)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,282
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,338
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,209
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 
  The registrant is IOS Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation, whose parent is
IKON Office Solutions, Inc. The following sets forth information with respect
to IOS Capital, Inc.'s subsidiaries as of December 18, 1998.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 STATE OR OTHER
                                                                JURISDICTION OF
                                            % VOTING SECURITIES INCORPORATION OR
SUBSIDIARY                                    OWNED (BY WHOM)     ORGANIZATION
----------                                  ------------------- ----------------
<S>                                         <C>                 <C>
IKON Funding, Inc..........................  100% IOS Capital       Delaware
</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

TRACY LEE MILLER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 25, 2024

v No. 366614 Calhoun Circuit Court MARK ALAN MILLER, LC No. 2021

- 003295

- DM

Defendant

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

Before: M. J. K ELLY , P .J., and J ANSEN an d M URRAY , JJ.

M URRAY , J

. ( concurring )

. I fully concur in the majority opinion. Though not raised by either party on appeal, I write separately to point out that the trial court should have conducted this trial in

- person, rather than remotely. Prior to trial plaintiff moved to have the trial conducted in

- person, and defendant concurred. Thus, both parties preferred that their trial

— a trial that involved custody of their child and the division of their assets, and that would have a significant impact on the family and their futures

— be conducted in the courtroom. At the time the court denied the motion, MCR 2.408(A) provided that the use of videoconferenc ing technology shall not be used in bench trials, unless after notice the court determines otherwise. 1 Here, after analyzing the factors under MCR 2.407(C) (3)

, (4) and (7) , the court determine d that an in

- person trial was not necessary. But in addressing these factors, the court seemed to view them with a presumption to having a remote proceeding. For example, in its analysis of (C)(3), the court noted that it was geared towards providing convenience to the parties

— but the parties wanted the in

- person tri al, so they clearly de cid ed to forego any convenience to gain the advantage of presenting live testimony to the court. As to the remaining factors, the court simply indicated that cross

- examination can effectively occur

1 The motion hearing was held on September 26, 2022

, and MCR 2.408 was effective September 9, 2022. See ADM File No. 2020

- 08 ( August 10, 2022 ).- 2

-

over a video, and it could control the proceedings. But trials are to be held in the public courtrooms, MCR 2.408 (A) , and to not hold one in

- person on the basis that it can be performed remotely is in consistent with the court rules and our legal traditions.

/s/ Christopher M. Murr ay