alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN



 Exhibit 10.8 
  
 Summary of Executive Bonus Plan 
  
 The Executive Bonus Plan provides for an annual cash bonus based upon net income goals set at the beginning of the year, as well as upon the
achievement of individual goals. A target incentive compensation amount and a specific participation percentage for each executive officer were established by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors with reference to the officer’s
area and scope of responsibility with the Company. 
  
 The cash bonus payable to
executive officers under the Plan is calculated based on a formula. The formula provides that 40% of the assigned target incentive compensation amount can be earned through performance of individual goals and that the remaining portion of the cash
bonus is calculated as a percentage of net income based on each officer’s specific participation percentage. In addition, the total cash bonus payable based on net income achieved is subject to a maximum amount not to exceed 3.5 times 60% of
the target incentive compensation amount. 
  
 The Vice President of Worldwide
Sales receives incentive compensation under the Company’s sales commission plan.
#### In the Matter of Anthony C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 510]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Anthony C. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Sacco, J.), dated February 20, 2013, which, upon his admission, found that he violated the terms and conditions of probation previously imposed by the same court in an order of disposition dated October 24, 2011, placing him on probation, vacated the prior order of disposition dated October 24, 2011, and thereupon placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 12 months, with credit for only one month spent in detention.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that giving the appellant credit for the entire time that he spent in detention pending disposition would not serve his needs and best interests or the need for the protection of the community *(see*Family Ct Act § 353.3 [5]; *Matter of Kenyetta F.,*49 AD3d 540, 541 [2008]). Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly determined that the appellant should only receive a credit of one month for the time that he served in detention prior to disposition.

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in a juvenile delinquency case *(see Matter of Jalen G.,*104 AD3d 853 [2013]; *Matter of Antoine H.,*81 AD3d 646 [2011]). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the appellant in the custody of New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The disposition was the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the appellant and the needs of the community in light of, inter alia, the appellant’s need for supervision and treatment in a structured setting, and the recommendations set forth in reports prepared by a psychologist and by the Administration for Children’s Services *(see*Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
Exhibit (10)(xxi)  

                          H. IRWIN LEVY
                        100 Century Blvd.
                    West Palm Beach, FL  33417


                                                  May 1, 1996
NewCen Communities, Inc.
13460 SW  10th St.
Pembroke Pines, FL  33027
Attn:  Mr. Jack Jaiven, Vice President

     RE:  SECOND EXTENSION AGREEMENT
          $750,000.00 Revolving Credit Facility

Gentlemen:

This letter is intended to confirm and memorialize our
understanding and agreement in connection with the referenced
matter.

H. Irwin Levy is the "Payee" under that certain Promissory Note
(the "Note") dated September 15, 1994 in the principal sum of up
to Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($750,000.00 -
the "Committed Amount") and that certain Extension Agreement
dated April 28, 1995, whereby the time for payment of the
outstanding principal balance of the indebtedness evidenced by
the Note was extended until and including the first day of May
1996.  The Payee, also referred to as the "Lender" under that
certain Loan Agreement drafted as a letter agreement of even date
with the Note, has agreed to further extend the time for payment
of the indebtedness evidenced by the Note.

NewCen Communities, Inc., the "Maker" under the Note and the
"Borrower" under the subject Loan Agreement, acknowledges that it
has requested the extension herein and further does hereby
certify, confirm and agree that the Loan Agreement and Note are
in full force and effect, are valid and enforceable in accordance
with their terms and are not subject to any defenses or offsets
of any kind or nature whatsoever.

The parties agree, in consideration of the premises and other
good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency
whereof is hereby acknowledged, that: (1) the time for payment of
the outstanding principal balance of the indebtedness evidenced
by the Note shall be and is hereby further extended until and
including the first day of May, 1997;  (2) during the period
commencing on the date hereof and ending on and including May 1,
1997, the principal balance outstanding shall bear interest at a
floating rate equal to the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate (as
said term is defined in the Note) per annum; and,  (3) on or
prior to the date hereof, Borrower shall pay to Lender a
commitment fee of 0.25% of the Committed Amount ($1,875.00).



NewCen Communities, Inc.
Attn: Michael S. Rubin
May 1, 1996
page 2 of 2




All other terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and of the
Note, as hereinabove modified and extended, shall remain fully
enforceable throughout the extended term of the Note.

Kindly countersign this letter in the place designated below to
acknowledge and confirm your agreement to the foregoing.


                                   Very truly yours,

                                    /s/ H. Irwin Levy

                                   H. Irwin Levy



Confirmed, acknowledged and agreed:

NEWCEN COMMUNITIES, INC.

       
By:      /s/ Jack Jaiven             
     Jack Jaiven, Vice President
#### Tillman *v.*Fontaine.

The present case is no exception to the rule that the first grant of a new trial should be acquiesced in.

April 9, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Willis. City court of Columbus. April term, 1898.

Peabody, Brannon, Hatcher & Martin, for plaintiff.

Little & Wimbish and McNeill & Levy, for claimant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 761 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 761

 To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 
   the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 
   National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an 
 international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the 
    establishment of this National Conservation Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2005

 Mr. Craig (for himself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rename the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in 
   the State of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey 
   National Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an 
 international authority on birds of prey, who was instrumental in the 
    establishment of this National Conservation Area, 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 ``Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area Act''.

SEC. 2. RENAMING OF SNAKE RIVER BIRDS OF PREY NATIONAL CONSERVATION 
              AREA.

    (a) Renaming.--Public Law 103-64 is amended--
            (1) in section 2(2) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-1(2)), by inserting 
        ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey National 
        Conservation Area''; and
            (2) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        inserting ``Morley Nelson'' before ``Snake River Birds of Prey 
        National Conservation Area''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Snake River Birds of 
Prey National Conservation Area shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
    (c) Technical Corrections.--Public Law 103-64 is further amended--
            (1) in section 3(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 460iii-2(a)(1)), by 
        striking ``(hereafter referred to as the `conservation 
        area')''; and
            (2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 460iii-3)--
                    (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking 
                ``Conservation Area'' and inserting ``conservation 
                area''; and
                    (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``Visitors 
                Center'' and inserting ``visitors center''.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128796(88) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128796 COA: 241671 Wayne CC: 01-009927-01 ROBERT HARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of September 15, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0123 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 5, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. TAJUAN CARVELL BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-3199 (D.C. Nos. 5:15-CV-04848-JAR & 5:11-CR-40030-JAR-1) (D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before BRISCOE , GORSUCH , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.
Nearly two years after his federal conviction for felony drug and firearm offenses became final, TaJuan Brooks filed a motion seeking to have his conviction and sentence set aside. But as the district court recognized, a federal habeas petitioner normally has only one year within which to seek collateral relief like this. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). And while that deadline can be tolled for equitable reasons, the district court found that the exceptional circumstances required for such relief were absent and dismissed his case as untimely.

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.Mr. Brooks now seeks to appeal that holding. To do so, he must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). And to do that, he must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This much Mr. Brooks hasn’t done. In his submission to this court, he puts forward no argument whatsoever for why his motion was timely or why the district court’s careful analysis and decision not to apply equitable tolling was in error. Neither can we identify any flaws in the district court’s determination on either score. Mr. Brooks’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, his request for a COA is denied, and this appeal is dismissed. Mr. Brooks is reminded of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

- 2 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1191

WILLIAM ALEXANDER LARA-ELIAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 24, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, 

Assistant Director, Jason Wisecup, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Alexander Lara-Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lara-Elias’ merits hearing 

before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that we are 

without jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Lara-Elias’ asylum application is 

time-barred. See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that

express language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012) prevents review of IJ’s finding that 

applicant did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we 

dismiss in part the petition for review. Concerning the Board’s denial of withholding of 

removal and protection under the CAT, we conclude that the record evidence does not 

compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 

INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). 

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 21, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 21, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25I0004. SUJAN DASS v. GREGORY PINSON .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV02079
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00052

- CV

Jimmy Justin v. Valley Grande Institute for Academic Studies
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CL

- 17

- 3051

- F

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF A PPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 29, 2021
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MoSys, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Leonard Perham,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W.Sullivan, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ LEONARD PERHAM                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Leonard Perham                                           |
|   | *President  and Chief Executive Officer*                 |
|   | April 30, 2010                                      |
|   |                                                     |
|   | /s/ JAMES W. SULLIVAN                                    |
|   | James W. Sullivan                                        |
|   | *Vice  President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer* |
|   | April 30, 2010                                      |

 

Thiscertification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

----
(Exhibit 3.1.13)
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              MEDIX RESOURCES, INC.

       Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado  Business  Corporation Act, as
  amended (the "Act"), Medix Resources,  Inc., a corporation organized under the
  laws of the State of Colorado,  by its Chief  Executive  Officer,  does hereby
  certify as follows:

       1.  The name of the Corporation is Medix Resources, Inc.

       2. The Board of  Directors of said  Corporation  at a meeting duly called
  and held has authorized and passed resolutions declaring that the amendment to
  the Articles of  Incorporation  contained herein is advisable and directed the
  officers of the  Corporation to present such amendment to the  shareholders of
  the Corporation at the Annual Meeting of shareholders.

       3. Upon notice given to each  shareholder  of record  entitled to vote on
  such  amendment  to the  Articles  of  Incorporation  in  accordance  with the
  requirements  of the  Act,  the  Annual  Meeting  of the  shareholders  of the
  Corporation  was  held  on  June  11,  1999,  at  which  meeting  shareholders
  representing  a  quorum  of  the  voting  power  were  present  in  person  or
  represented  by proxy,  and the number of votes cast for the amendment by each
  voting group  entitled to vote  separately on the amendment was sufficient for
  approval by the voting group.

      4 .      The amendment approved was as follows:

       Section 1 of Article IV of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation is
  amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                                   ARTICLE IV
                                  CAPITAL STOCK

       Section 1. Classes and Shares  Authorized.  The total number of shares of
  Common  Stock  that the  Corporation  shall have  authority  to issue is Fifty
  Million  (100,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share. The
  total  number of shares of  Preferred  Stock that the  Corporation  shall have
  authority to issue is Two Million Five Hundred Thousand  (2,500,000) shares of
  Preferred Stock, $1.00 par value per share.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Medix  Resources,  Inc. has caused these Articles of
  Amendment  to Articles of  Incorporation  to be signed by its Chief  Executive
  Officer and Secretary, effective as of the date of filing of these Articles of
  Amendment  to Articles of  Incorporation  with the  Secretary  of State of the
  State of Colorado.

                                    MEDIX RESOURCES, INC.


By: _/s/ John P. Yeros
                                            John P. Yeros
                                        Its Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Secretary
| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 1, 2012  | By:    | /s/ ANDREW WHIPPLE  |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Andrew Whipple           |   |
|                               |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |

|   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0245

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ZECHARIAH JUSTIN DANIEL SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 13, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2023

10/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0245