alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document










































 
 

  Exhibit 10.17    
    


Lynnette C. Fallon

Executive Vice President HR/Legal and General Counsel
Tel: (978) 787-4120

Fax: (978) 787-4090


                                        
                                          
         February 10,
2012 


Mary
G. Puma, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Axcelis Technologies, Inc.

108 Cherry Hill Drive

Beverly, Massachusetts 01915 


        Re: Base Compensation of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


Dear
Mary: 


        This
letter extends the arrangement between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. and you regarding your base pay increase approved by the Compensation Committee on April 26, 2011. We
have agreed to further defer the implementation of this increase until January 1, 2013. 



        Notwithstanding
the delay in effectiveness of this salary increase, in the event that you are at any time entitled to separation pay under your Employment Agreement or your Change of
Control Agreement with the Company, both dated as of November 6, 2007, your base compensation rate will be deemed to be the rate approved by the Compensation Committee on April 26, 2011
and all amounts due to you shall be calculated as if such increase had become effective on May 1, 2011 as initially contemplated by the Compensation Committee. 



        Please
sign below to indicate your agreement to the foregoing. Thank you. 

 






					
	 	 	Best regards,
	

 	
 	
AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
	

 	
 	
By:	
 	
/s/ LYNNETTE C. FALLON






  Lynnette C. Fallon
 Executive Vice President HR/Legal and General Counsel




 


 






			
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:	 	 
	
 /s/ MARY G. PUMA






  Mary G. Puma	
 	

 



 

 








QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.17
Exhibit
15.1





INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT





We
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated April 27, 2009
included in Form 20-F of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. for the year ended December
31, 2008 into Registration Statement Numbers 333-42000, 333-115003, 333-135435,
333-141307, 333-149825 and 333-158839on
Form S-8 of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.





/s/
Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.







Certified
Public Accountants


A
Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu





Tel
Aviv, Israel


May
4, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5051 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5051

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1001 Williams Street in Ignacio, Colorado, as the ``Leonard C. Burch 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2004

 Mr. McInnis (for himself, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Tancredo, Ms. DeGette, Mrs. 
   Musgrave, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Beauprez) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1001 Williams Street in Ignacio, Colorado, as the ``Leonard C. Burch 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LEONARD C. BURCH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1001 Williams Street in Ignacio, Colorado, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Leonard C. Burch Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Leonard C. 
Burch Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 750 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 750

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that individual 
            choice in health insurance should be protected.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2019

  Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Nunes) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that individual 
            choice in health insurance should be protected.

Whereas more than 159 million Americans under the age of 65 are enrolled in 
        private health insurance through their employer;
Whereas more than 14 million Americans under the age of 65 are enrolled in 
        private health insurance that they purchase on their own behalf;
Whereas more than 22 million Americans receive Medicare benefits through a 
        Medicare Advantage plan offered by a private entity;
Whereas private health insurance coverage often provides benefits that are more 
        robust than benefits offered under a Federal or State health program and 
        at cost that is lower than under a Federal or State health program; and
Whereas H.R. 1384 from the 116th Congress and similar bills would make the 
        offering of private health insurance unlawful, snatching away the health 
        insurance millions of Americans have, like, and rely on in favor of 
        government rationing of care: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect and promote 
individual choice in health insurance for the American people and 
prevent any ``Medicare for All'' proposal that would outlaw private 
health plans, such as job-based coverage and Medicare Advantage plans.
                                 <all>
```
#### The Southwestern Mineral Railway Company v. Thomas Harvey.

No. 311.

*Railroads*— Condemnation *of Bight of Way*— Elements *of Damage.*In an appeal from an award made in condemnation proceedings, the jury, in answer to a special question, stated that they included in their award damages for increased hazard to animals or stock by being frightened by trains. *Held,*that such damages are speculative and not a proper element in awarding compensation.

Error from Labette district court; A. H. Skidmore, judge.

Opinion filed October 21, 1898.

Reversed.

*T. N. Sedgwick,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. E. Williams,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

The plaintiff in error asks a reversal of a judgment awarding damages to the defendant in error, by the district court of Labette county, for right of way. The serious question involved is in the seventh question submitted to the jury and the answer thereto, which are as follows :

> ‘ ‘ Ques. 7. Do you allow anything for increased haz*490ard to animals or stock caused by being frightened by defendant’s train of cars, and, if so, do you include that in your award? Ans. Yes.”

It has been repeatedly held by our supreme court that this item of damages is speculative and remote. The amount allowed by the jury for increased hazard to the animals or stock of defendant in error, caused by being frightened by the trains of plaintiff in error, cannot be ascertained, but whatever the amount.may be it is included in the award. The question is fully discussed in the following cases : *A. & D. Rly. Co. v. Lyon,*24 Kan. 745; *St. L. K. & S. Rly. Co. v. Hammers,*51 id. 127, 32 Pac. 922, and cases there cited.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-10-152-CR

NO. 2-10-153-CR

RUSSELL SMITH APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Russell Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal from the March 23, 

2010 judgments convicting him of assault–family violence and tampering with a 

witness. On April 27, 2010, we notified Smith that the trial court’s certifications of

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

his right to appeal had been filed under the date of April 27, 2010;2that the 

certifications state these are plea bargain cases and he has no right of appeal; 

and that the appeals may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to 

continue the appeals files a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeals with the court on or before May 7, 2010. We have not received a

response. Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we 

dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 5, 2010

 

2See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
#### Philip Insinga, Respondent, v F.C. General Contracting et al., Appellants-Respondents, Ryder et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Petri Baking Products et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 513]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants F.C. General Contracting and Frank J. Ciliotta appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens *964County (Price, J.), dated December 9, 2004, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and the defendants Ryder and Chung Woo Han cross-appeal from so much of the same order as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendants Ryder and Chung Woo Han established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the vehicle owned by Ryder and driven by Han was stopped at the time of the accident *(see Garces v Karabelas,*17 AD3d 633 [2005]; *Macauley v Elrac, Inc.,*6 AD3d 584 [2004]). In response to this prima facie showing, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Han was also negligent in the operation of his vehicle by following too closely, driving too fast for the traffic conditions, or making an inappropriate sudden stop *(see Thoman v Rivera,*16 AD3d 667 [2005]; *Brodie v Global Asset Recovery, Inc.,*12 AD3d 390 [2004]; *Martin v Pullafico,*272 AD2d 305 [2000]).

The defendants F.C. General Contracting and Frank J. Ciliotta also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the vehicle owned by F.C. General Contracting and driven by Ciliotta was stopped at the time of the accident *(see Keenan v Ravit,*262 AD2d 366 [1999]; *Acampora v Davis,*203 AD2d 399 [1994]). In response to this prima facie showing, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether Ciliotta was also negligent in the operation of his vehicle by following too closely or cutting between the other two vehicles *(see Mohan v Puthumana,*302 AD2d 437 [2003]; *Sing-Lam Ng v Beatty,*300 AD2d 648 [2002]; *Rozengauz v Lok Wing Ha,*280 AD2d 534 [2001]; *Mendiolaza v Novinski,*268 AD2d 462 [2000]; *Silberman v Surrey Cadillac Limousine Serv.,*109 AD2d 833 [1985]).

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motions and cross motion. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, W. Craig Turner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products,  Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement  of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements  made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not  misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial  condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and  for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined  in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and  procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed  under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within  those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being  prepared; and

      (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this  report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and  procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such  evaluation; and 

      (d) Disclosed in this report any change  in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred  during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth  fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control  over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based  on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board  of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting  which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to  record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the  registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

| Date: May 20, 2009 | /s/ W. Craig Turner                  |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------|
|               |                                      |
|               | W. Craig Turner                      |
|               | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
20. Persons at work 1 to 34 hours in all and in nonagricultural industries by reason for working less than 35 hours

and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason for working less than 35 hours

2006

All industries Nonagricultural industries

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

 Total, 16 years and over ................................................................... 32,421 10,223 22,199 31,861 10,057 21,804

Economic reasons ................................................................................ 4,162 1,554 2,608 4,071 1,504 2,567

 Slack work or business conditions ...................................................... 2,658 1,294 1,363 2,596 1,259 1,337

 Could only find part-time work ............................................................ 1,189 – 1,189 1,178 – 1,178

 Seasonal work .................................................................................... 175 119 56 158 106 52

 Job started or ended during week ...................................................... 141 141 – 139 139 –

Noneconomic reasons .......................................................................... 28,259 8,669 19,591 27,790 8,553 19,237

 Child-care problems ........................................................................... 777 80 697 772 79 693

 Other family or personal obligations ................................................... 5,492 743 4,749 5,407 731 4,676

 Health or medical limitations ............................................................... 799 – 799 778 – 778

 In school or training ............................................................................ 6,316 89 6,227 6,247 89 6,158

 Retired or Social Security limit on earnings ........................................ 2,096 – 2,096 1,988 – 1,988

 Vacation or personal day .................................................................... 3,679 3,679 – 3,639 3,639 –

 Holiday, legal or religious ................................................................... 1,156 1,156 – 1,147 1,147 –

 Weather-related curtailment ............................................................... 388 388 – 365 365 –

 All other reasons ................................................................................. 7,555 2,533 5,022 7,448 2,504 4,944

Average hours:

Economic reasons .............................................................................. 23.1 24.0 22.5 23.1 24.0 22.5

 Other reasons ..................................................................................... 21.5 25.2 19.9 21.6 25.2 20.0

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2006, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet

publication criteria.

243
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

d0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

145565(16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145565

COA: 307732

Wayne CC: 02-014810-FH

ELIZABETH LLOYD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

20, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
Case 3:07-cv-01294-PGS-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/25/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 279
Case 3:06-cr-00935-PGS Document 43 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 293
Exhibit 10.42



 Exhibit 10.42 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. 
 2013 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers*

 The 2013 base salaries for Dominion’s named executive officers are as follows: Thomas F. Farrell II, Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer—$1,355,274; Mark F. McGettrick, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer—$718,028; Paul D. Koonce, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer— Energy Infrastructure Group (Chief
Executive Officer—Dominion Virginia Power)—$592,665; David A. Christian, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer—Dominion Generation Group (Chief Executive Officer—Dominion Generation)—$625,500; and Gary L.
Sypolt, Executive Vice President (Chief Executive Officer—Dominion Energy)—$531,753. 
  

	*	Effective March 1, 2013
#### MARSHWOOD CO. v. JAMIE MILLS, Inc., et al.

Civ. 27385.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

June 1, 1950.

Albert J. Williams, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Vern L. Oldham, Cleveland, Ohio, Albert H. Oldham, Akron, Ohio, William L. Bantz, Barberton, Ohio, for defendants.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action in which plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from disclosing a certain secret recipe. A motion for the taking of defendants’ depositions has been granted and a subpoena duces tecum issued for the production of certain documents including those which will show the recipe now being used by defendants. Defendants have moved under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 30 (b), 28 U.S.C.A., for an order for protection against unjustified and unwarranted annoyance and oppression.

The objections are based primarily on the desire of the defendants to keep certain business information from a competing business. However, the documents probably contain information which will aid the Court in determining issues to be presented to it by a motion for a preliminary injunction.

It would seem, therefore, that adequate protection will be afforded by an order that the examination shall be held with no one present except the parties and their officers and counsel, and after the depositions have been taken that they be sealed and opened only on the order of this Court.

Since this means that defendants’ secret recipe will be disclosed to plaintiff, it will be ordered that before the depositions are taken, plaintiff must file with the Clerk of this court all documents relating to its secret process in a sealed envelope to be opened only as directed by this Court.
902 A.2d 860

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY C. JONES, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

June 27, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20-15(k) a recommendation that ANTHONY C. JONES of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-03-048F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY C. JONES be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective July 27, 2006, and until respondent satisfies the award of the District IIB Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. IIB-03-048F and pays a sanction of $500 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee; provided, however, this Order shall be vacated automatically if prior to the effective date of the suspension, the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that respondent has satisfied all financial obligations under this Order or has submitted and is current under an installment payment plan approved by the Board; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, he shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*2ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20.