alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-8.htm


EXHIBIT 10.8







Gray Television, Inc.







Description of Annual Incentive Plan Structure







The Management Personnel Committee of the board of directors of the Company, operating as the compensation committee, has established certain annual cash incentive opportunities for the Company’s executive officers.  The target opportunities are based on the achievement of certain performance metrics, and have been established as a percentage of each executive officer’s base salary, with such target opportunities for each of Messrs. Howell, Jr., Prather, Jr., Ryan and Latek being 60%, 35%, 30% and 30% of each individual’s base salary, respectively.


 


For the year ending December 31, 2012, the Committee established threshold (minimum), target and maximum levels of performance for each metric, with a weighting of the total incentive opportunity assigned to each of the metrics as follows: (i) 25% for revenue, (ii) 25% for “net operating profit” (calculated as net revenue less broadcast expense and corporate and administrative expense) and (iii) 50% for broadcast cash flow (as defined in the Non-GAAP reconciliations published by the Company). Target performance goals were developed based on internal company budgets and forecasts.  If actual Company performance for any of the metrics above is less than 95% of the “target” amount of such metrics, no payment will be made for that metric.  If actual performance is between 95% and 100% of target performance, awards will be paid on a scale of 50% to 100% of each executive officer’s target opportunity.  If actual performance exceeds 100% and is less than or equal to 110% of target performance, awards will be payable on a scale from 100% to 150% of an executive officer’s target opportunity, in each case based on linear interpolation of actual results.  The maximum award payable for any single metric is 150% of an executive officer’s target opportunity for that metric. If the threshold measure is not achieved, then no payment will be made for the associated metric.


 


The Committee will review performance at the conclusion of the fiscal year and determine actual incentive payments earned.
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Bar Docket No. 13026

In the Matter of DAVID BEN MANDELBAUM,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

In a letter signed by the respondent on August 8, 2018, addressed to the Clerk of 

the Appellate Courts, respondent David Ben Mandelbaum, an attorney admitted to the 

practice of law in the state of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law 

in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 261). 

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, the office of the Disciplinary 

Administrator was investigating a complaint alleging that the respondent violated Kansas 

Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 381) (misconduct), for 

violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2016), attempting to evade or defeat tax. On August 8, 2018, 

the respondent entered a plea of guilty to the felony offense. 

This court finds that the surrender of the respondent's license should be accepted 

and that the respondent should be disbarred. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that David Ben Mandelbaum be and he is hereby 

disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas, and his license and privilege to practice law 

are hereby revoked. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of 

David Ben Mandelbaum from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, 

that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith 

shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 262). 

Dated this 21st day of August, 2018.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 19

- 3010

_______________ EZAKI GLICO KABUSHIKI KAISHA, a Japanese Corporation d/b/a Ezaki Glico;

EZAKI GLICO USA CORP., a California Corporation,

Appellants

v.

LOTTE INTERNATIONAL AMERICA CORP.; LOTTE CONFECTIONARY CO. LTD.

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 05477) District Judge: Honorable Madeline C. Arleo

_______________ Argued: J uly 9, 2020

Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

_______________

ORDER

_______________
The panel has revised the opinion issued on January 27, 2021 and deleted a sentence

and citation from the conclusion that appeared at page 20. The Clerk is directed to file the

amended opinion. The judgment remains the same.

By the Court,

s/ Stephanos Bibas Circuit Judge Dated: March 10, 2021
#### William E. FRY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PARCELITE SOLUTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-3107.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2013.

Filed: April 24, 2013.

*632William E. Fry, Independence, MO, pro se.

Rachel Heath Baker, Seigfreid & Bing-ham, Kansas City, MO, Robert W. Capo-bianco, Jackson *&*Lewis, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Fry appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment to Parcelite Solutions (Parcelite), his former employer, in his action claiming he was discharged in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that summary judgment was proper. *See Glascock v. Linn Cnty. Emergency Med., PC,*698 F.3d 695, 697 (8th Cir.2012) (de novo standard of review). Even if Fry showed a prima facie case for his FMLA and ADA claims, *see Bosley v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.,*705 F.3d 777, 783-84 (8th Cir.2013) (absent direct evidence, FMLA retaliation claims are analyzed under framework established in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)); *Otto v. City of Victoria,*685 F.3d 755, 758 (8th Cir.2012) (same for ADA claim), Parcelite proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Fry’s discharge: after conducting an investigation based on an internal complaint, it determined that Fry had violated its policy prohibiting sexual harassment, *see Wheeler v. Aventis Pharms.,*360 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir.2004) (violation of sexual-harassment policy can be nondiscriminatory basis for termination). We conclude that the undisputed evidence reveals no triable issue of fact as to whether the proffered reason was pretextual. *See, e.g., Ryan v. Capital Contractors, Inc.,*679 F.3d 772, 776-77 (8th Cir.2012) (under *McDonnell Douglas*framework, once employer proffers legitimate reason for its action, plaintiff must show that reason was pretext for unlawful discrimination).

Further, Parcelite did not interfere with Fry’s FMLA rights by discharging him— while he was on medical leave — for the reason it stated, *see Throneberry v. McGehee Desha Cnty. Hosp.,*403 F.3d 972, 980 (8th Cir.2005) (employer does not interfere with FMLA rights merely by terminating employee for legitimate reason, such as harassment of another employee); and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fry’s motions for counsel, *see Plummer v. Grimes,*87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review). As to Fry’s new allegations and claims on appeal, we decline to address them. *See Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Fry’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Chart 3-11. Union membership has declined over time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Percent of employed wage and salary workers

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Men

Total

Women

Chart 3-11. Union membership has declined over time

• In 2005, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, down 

from 20.1 percent in 1983 (the first year for which comparable data are 

available).

• Nearly 4 in 10 government workers were union members in 2005, compared 

with fewer than 1 in 10 private-sector employees.

• Men are more likely than women to be union members; however, the disparity 

has narrowed over time.
eXHIBIT 10.96.1


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE


AMENDED MANAGEMENT
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


The Management Incentive Compensation Plan as
amended and restated as of July 12, 2011, and as subsequently amended (the
“Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of the dates specified below.


 


1.             Effective as of January 1,
2013, Article III of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following at the
end thereof:


“The final Year for
which employees may be selected as Participants, and for which Awards may be
paid, shall be 2012.  With respect to the 2012 Year, payments shall be made
under the terms of the Plan as amended herein, based on the Performance
Measures that were originally established by Progress Energy, Inc. for the 2012
Year and that were subsequently amended in connection with the merger of
Progress Energy, Inc. and Duke Energy Corporation.”


2.             Effective as of the date
hereof, Article IV of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following at the
end thereof:


“Solely with respect
to the 2012 Year, any employee who is hired on or after October 1, 2012 and who
satisfies all other eligibility requirements for the Plan shall be eligible for
a prorated Award under the Plan for the portion of the 2012 Year in which he or
she was eligible to participate in the Plan.”


3.             Effective as of the date
hereof, Article VI of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following at the
end thereof:


“Notwithstanding the
fact that 2012 shall be the final Year for which employees shall be selected as
Participants, and for which Awards may be paid, and notwithstanding the fact
that 2011 was the final Year for which Awards could be deferred, Awards that
were deferred for the 2011 Year and any prior Year shall remain in the Plan
Deferral Accounts that have been established under the Plan and shall be
distributed in accordance with the terms of the Plan and Participant deferral
elections as in effect from time to time.”


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Progress Energy, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed on the
date specified below.


By:____Jennifer L. Weber_________________ 


 


Title: Executive Vice President


 


Date:__December 26, 2012   ____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: November 12, 2015

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTER: n/a

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-3962(MLC) 

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. 

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD., et al. 

 

APPEARANCES:

Joseph O’Malley, Esq., Eric Dittman, Esq., and Charles Lizza, Esq., for plaintiffs

Mayra Tarantino, Esq., Jovial Wong, Esq., Michael Patunas, Esq., and Julia Johnson, Esq., for 

defendant TEVA

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Status conference via telephone held in chambers. (Off the record.)

TIME COMMENCED: 4:00pm 

TIME ADJOURNED: 4:10pm 

TOTAL TIME: 10 minutes 

s/Elizabeth Heffner

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA Document 357 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 21345
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<CAPTION>
<ARTICLE>                                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                           1
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                    Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                      Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                                        16,591,923
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 28,100,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                    2,499,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              64,607,573
<PP&E>                                                        74,539,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                                13,471,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               154,149,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         80,606,426
<BONDS>                                                       49,716,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                         104,391
<OTHER-SE>                                                     7,398,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 154,149,426
<SALES>                                                       89,683,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              89,683,870
<CGS>                                                         93,855,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 93,855,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  45,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             1,268,054
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (4,997,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (4,997,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (4,997,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (0.47)
        


</TABLE>
S07Y1209.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ALICE CALDWELL STEWART.

(647 SE2d 53)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of the special master accepting the petition for *338voluntary discipline filed by Alice Caldwell Stewart, and recommending that the Court impose an indefinite suspension to run concurrently with a two-year suspension imposed last year, *In the Matter of Stewart,*280 Ga. 821 (631 SE2d 106) (2006), and with certain conditions precedent to reinstatement. See Rule 4-102 (b) (2), Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct.

Decided June 25, 2007

Reconsideration denied July 26, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Rebecca A. Hall, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Thomas M. West,*for Stewart.

The special master found that Stewart undertook to represent seven different clients in civil and habeas matters, but except for one matter, failed to pursue the legal matters entrusted to her; failed to communicate with her clients about the matters; failed to return files to the clients when requested; and failed to return unearned attorney fees. Additionally, Stewart continued to practice law despite not being in good standing with the State Bar after she failed to timely pay her dues in 2005. This conduct constitutes violations of Rules 1.3,1.4, and 5.5 (a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rules 1.3 and 5.5 is disbarment and for Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand.

Having reviewed the record, we agree with the special master’s recommendation and hereby impose an indefinite suspension, to run concurrently with the two-year suspension previously imposed, with certain conditions: Stewart will promptly undergo evaluation and treatment at a medical facility approved by the State Bar and its Lawyer Assistance Program; return all client files, or provide an explanation of her inability to return the materials; and return all unearned fees. Prior to reinstatement, she will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Review Panel that her medical providers have certified that she is not impaired within the meaning of Rule 4-104 and that she has met all the above requirements.

*Indefinite suspension with conditions.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# cpsaat34
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

John B. Kearney

kearneyj @ballardspahr.com

Christopher N. Tomlin

tomlinc@ballardspahr.com

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Telephone: (856) 761-3400

Facsimile: (856) 761-1020

Sandra C. McCallion

smccal1ioncohengresser.com

Thomas E. Bezanson

tbezansoncohengresser.com

Melanie A. Grossman

mgrossmancohengresser.com

COHEN & GRESSER LLP

800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 957-7600

Facsimile: (212) 957-4514

Attorneysfor Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc.

x

DEBORAH MOULTON, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

2:1 1-cv-04073-JLL

Plaintiff,

Document Electronically Filed

- against -

LG ELECTRONICS, NC. and LG

ELECTRONICS USA, INC.

Defendants.

x

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL -MAH Document 33 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 174
NOTICE OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, counsel for Defendant LG

Electronics USA, Inc. (“Defendant”), shall move on March 5, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon

thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the United States District Court for the District of

New Jersey, the Honorable Jose L. Linares presiding, at theMartin Luther King, Jr. Federal

Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, for an Order Dismissing

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that counsel shall rely on the

accompanying Memorandum of Law and Certification of Melanie A. Grossman (with attached

exhibits) in support of said Motion.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that objections, if any, to the relief

sought in said Motion must be timely filed with the Court and served on counsel for Defendant.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant hereby requests oral

argument on said Motion.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is

annexed hereto.

Dated: February 3, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

By: Is! John B. Kearney

John B. Kearney

keameyj @ballardspahr.com

Christopher N. Tomlin

tomlinc@ballardspahr. corn

BALLARD SPAHR LLP

210 Lake Drive East, Suite 200

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL -MAH Document 33 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 175
Telephone: (856) 761-3400

Facsimile: (856) 761-1020

Of Counsel:

Sandra C. McCallion

smccalIion(dcohengresser.com

Thomas E. Bezanson

tbezansoni3cohengresser.coin

Melanie A. Grossman

rngrossrnan(djcohengresser.com

COHEN & GRESSER LLP

800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 957-7600

Facsimile: (212) 957-4514

Attorneysfor Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc.

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL -MAH Document 33 Filed 02/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 176
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of Viad Corp for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Viad Corp.
 Date: November 7, 2008
    By /s/ Paul B. DykstraPaul B. DykstraChief Executive Officer
Case 1:11-cr-00440-JBS Document 17 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 21
Case 1:11-cr-00440-JBS Document 17 Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 22
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5325

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a deadline for the 

screening of all individuals, goods, property, vehicles, and other equipment entering a secure area of an airport, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 8, 2004

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a deadline for the screening of all individuals, goods, property, 

vehicles, and other equipment entering a secure area 

of an airport, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guaranteeing Airport 

5 Physical Screening Standards Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 5325 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SCREENING OF ALL INDIVIDUALS AND PROPERTY 

2 ENTERING SECURE AREAS OF AN AIRPORT. 

3 (a) DEADLINE.—Section 44903(h)(4)(A) of title 49, 

4 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘as soon as 

5 practicable after the date of enactment of this subsection’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘not later than 120 days after the date of 

7 enactment of the Guaranteeing Airport Physical Screening 

8 Standards Act of 2004’’. 

9 (b) SCREENING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.—

10 Section 44903(h)(4)(B) of such title is amended by insert11 ing before the semicolon at the end the following: ‘‘and 

12 will include at a minimum physical screening for metal 

13 objects’’. 

14 (c) INTERIM MEASURES.—The Secretary shall re15 quire random screenings and inspections of individuals, 

16 goods, property, vehicles, and other equipment at the en17 trances of, and within, secure areas of an airport until 

18 such date as the Secretary has fully complied with the re19 quirements of section 44903(h)(4)(A) of such title. The 

20 random screenings and inspections shall be conducted in 

21 a manner that assures the level of protection described in 

22 section 44903(h)(4)(B) of such title, as amended by this 

23 section. The random screenings and inspections shall be 

24 unannounced and shall be conducted 24 hours a day. 
3

•HR 5325 IH 

1 SEC. 3. HIRING OF SCREENERS. 

2 (a) NUMBER OF SCREENERS.—Notwithstanding any 

3 other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

4 may hire the number of passenger and baggage screeners 

5 that the Secretary determines necessary to ensure aviation 

6 security. 

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

9 necessary to carry out this section.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------

Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  President  and Chief
Executive  Officer of Tidelands Oil & Gas Corporation,  (the  "Company"),  herby
certify that,  to the best of my knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the  registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated: March 30, 2004.                                /s/ Michael Ward
                                                     --------------------
                                                     President and CEO