alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: Data refer to extended mass layoffs (private sector nonfarm employers indicated that 50 or more workers were separated 

from their jobs for at least 31 days) in which the employer reports that work was relocated. These movements of work were to other 

U.S. locations or to locations outside of the U.S., and they occurred either within the same company or to other companies.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-15. In 2005, out-of-country relocations accounted for 

about one-third of workers separated from their jobs due to 

the relocation of work

Separations due to out-ofcountry relocations

(34.2 percent)

2005

Separations due to 

domestic relocations

(63.7 percent)

Place of relocation 

unknown

(2.1 percent)

Chart 1-15. In 2005, out-of-country relocations accounted for 

about one-third of workers separated from their jobs due to 

the relocation of work

• Of the 33,255 workers separated from their jobs in 2005 due to the relocation 

of work, the separation of about a third (11,375 workers) was associated with 

the movement of work outside of the country. Domestic relocation—both 

within the company and to other companies—affected 21,186 workers.

• Extended mass layoffs and separations associated with the movement of work, 

domestically or overseas, reflect job loss where at least 50 people filed for 

unemployment insurance during a 5-week period and the layoff lasted more 

than 30 days. The extended mass layoff statistics and movement of work 

measures, therefore, do not reflect layoffs of less than 50 workers at these 

companies, nor does the program capture layoffs occurring at establishments 

with fewer than 50 workers. Moreover, these data do not cover situations in 

which firms initiate or transfer work to new locations when there are no 

layoffs involved.
NUMBER 13-18-00131-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PORT CITY IMPORTS, INC. D/B/A AUTONATION Appellants,

HONDA SOUTH CORPUS CHRISTI; AN CORPUS 

CHRISTI CHEVROLET, LP, CORPUS CHRISTI, LP; 

AN MOTORS ON SOUTH PADRE, LP, AN MOTORS 

ON SOUTH PADRE F/K/A AN CORPUS CHRISTI 

CHEVROLET, LP, 

v.

ARACELIA HINOJOSA, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellants, Port City Imports, Inc. d/b/a AutoNation Honda South Corpus Christi; 

AN Corpus Christi Chevrolet, LP, Corpus Christi, LP; AN Motors on South Padre, LP, AN
2

Motors on South Padre f/k/a AN Corpus Christi Chevrolet, LP, perfected an appeal from 

a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause 

number 2015CCV-61538-4. The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the joint motion to 

dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

The joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will 

be taxed against appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the 

parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at 

the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Delivered and filed the

20th day of September, 2018.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To the Board of Directors of SMTC Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-44250) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-115400) on Form S-1 ofSMTC Corporation of our report dated March 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SMTC Corporation as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of SMTC Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Chartered Accountants, Licensed PublicAccountants 

Toronto, Canada 

March 28, 2008
# 2011

&8page &P of &N	

# 2015

# 2018

# 2019
Exhibit 10.2


 Exhibit 10.2 
 FIVE BELOW, INC. 
 COMPENSATION POLICY FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

 (Effective February 3, 2013) 
 1. ANNUAL CASH AND STOCK COMPENSATION 
  

	 	•	 	 Eligible Directors: Each member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not an employee of the Company (a
“Non-Employee Director”) and who is not affiliated with Advent International Corporation. 


  

	 	•	 	 Annual Cash Retainer. Each eligible director shall receive $50,000 annually paid in arrears for each fiscal quarter.



  

	 	•	 	 Additional Annual Retainers for Chairs of Committees who are Eligible Directors: $25,000 annually for the Audit Committee and the Compensation
Committee and $15,000 annually for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in each case paid quarterly in arrears together with the annual retainer for all eligible directors. 



 

	 	•	 	 Stock in lieu of Retainers: Prior to the end of the fiscal quarter with respect to which such cash retainer relates, an eligible director may
elect, in lieu of the cash retainer, to receive fully vested shares of the Company’s common stock (“Shares”) having a Fair Market Value (as such term is defined under the Five Below, Inc. Amended and Restated Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”)) equal to the amount of the foregone retainer for such period. Any such elected Shares will be delivered on or about the last day of the fiscal quarter with respect to which the foregone cash retainer relates. Any
fractional Shares will be paid in cash. 


  

	 	•	 	 Annual Equity Award. At each annual meeting of shareholders, each eligible director will receive a restricted stock award for Shares having a
Fair Market Value equal to $75,000 issued under the Plan and subject to an award agreement (an “Award Agreement”). Subject to such director’s continued service with the Company, each award shall vest in full at the next annual
meeting of shareholders. Such vesting may be accelerated upon certain events as provided in an Award Agreement. 


 2.
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - Each Non-Employee Director will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings and other Board related activities in accordance with the
Company’s plans or policies as in effect from time to time1. 
 3. AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION - This Policy may be amended or terminated by the Board at
any time. 
  

	1 	To the extent that any such reimbursements constitute compensation, (i) such amount shall be reimbursed no later than December 31 of the year following the
year in which the expense was incurred, (ii) such amount shall not affect the amount of compensatory expense reimbursements in any subsequent year, and (iii) the right to such reimbursement shall not be subject to liquidation or exchange
for any other benefit.
Case 3:11-cv-03127-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-03127-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-03127-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-03127-MLC-DEA Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
 SUMMARY OF GARDNER DENVER, INC. 
 MANAGEMENT RETENTION PROGRAM

 The Gardner Denver, Inc. (the “Company”) Management Retention Program (the “Program”)
is effective on November 11, 2012. The Program is administered by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”). The Committee has plenary authority, in its
sole discretion, to (a) select the participants under the Program, and (b) interpret the Program, including any award, and to make all other determinations necessary or advisable for the administration of the Program. The Committee may
correct any defect, supply any omission or reconcile any inconsistency in the Program in the manner and to the extent it deems desirable to carry the Program into effect. The determinations of the Committee in the administration of the Program are
final and conclusive. 
 The following executive officers received cash awards equal to 1.0 times their base salary in effect at
the time of the award: (i) Michael M. Larsen, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, (ii) Brent A. Walters, Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer & Secretary, and (iii) Susan A.
Gunn, Vice President, Human Resources. Vincent Trupiano, Vice President, Gardner Denver, Inc. and President, Industrial Products Group, received a cash award equal to 0.5 times his base salary in effect at the time of the award. At the time of his
award, Mr. Trupiano was not an executive officer of the Company. 
 In the event of the consummation of a sale of the
Company approved by the Board of Directors, cash awards under the Program will be payable in two tranches: (a) 50% of the cash award would be due and payable upon the consummation of any such approved sale; and (b) 50% of the cash award
will be due and payable six months after the consummation of such approved sale. In the event no approved sale of the Company is consummated on or before November 11, 2013, the cash award will be due and payable in full on November 11,
2013. 
 If a participant is terminated without “cause” or voluntarily resigns for “good reason” at any time
prior to such participant’s cash award, in whole or in part, becoming due and payable, then the balance of the cash award will be accelerated and paid in cash within 15 days after the date of termination of employment. No cash award, or balance
thereof, will be due and payable on or after separation from employment as a result of disability, retirement, voluntary resignation (other than voluntary resignation for “good reason”), or death, and in such event any portion of the cash
award that remains unpaid will be forfeited.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Matritech, Inc. (the registrant):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 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;b.
    
    [Paragraph omitted in
accordance with SEC
transition instructions
contained in SEC Release
33-8238, 34-47986 and
33-8760.]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; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants
internal control over
financial reporting that
occurred during the
registrants second fiscal
quarter 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 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
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 controls over
financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to
adversely affect the
registrants ability to
record, process, summarize
and report financial
information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves
management or other employees
who have a significant role
in the registrants internal
controls over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Stephen D. ChubbStephen D. ChubbChief Executive Officer
Law Offices of Stephen Turano

60 Park Place

Suite 703

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 236-0010

Attorney for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MAGNO.: 11-8018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Action

v. : Hon. William H. Walls, U.S.D.J.

ARTS VENTURA : ORDER MODIFYING ORDER

SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Stephen Turano, attorney for the

Defendant Aris Ventura in the above-captioned matter, upon an application for an Order

modifying the Order Setting Conditions of Pretrial Release to remove the condition of curfew

with home detention and electronic monitoring; and it appearing to the Court that Pretrial

Services and Ronnell Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, consents to the application ofthe

Defendant;

NOW THEREFORE, it is on this 6L-3 day ofJuly, 2012

ORDERED, that the Order Setting Conditions of Release be and the same hereby is

modified to remove the condition of curfew with home detention and electronic monitoring; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatotherof lase remain the same

(Hoiii H. s, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cr-00474-WHW Document 25 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 54
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Orchid BioSciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                                                                                 
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  March 26, 2004 |  | /s/    PAUL J. KELLY, MD                                                                                        
|                       |  | Paul J. Kelly, MD Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                         
|                       | 
|Dated:  March 26, 2004 |  | /s/    MICHAEL E. SPICER                                                                                        
|                       |  | Michael E. Spicer Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# cpsaat52
|   | (a) | Baxter      hereby grants to Licensee a world-wide royalty bearing (pursuant to      Article 3) exclusive right and license, with the right to grant      sublicenses, under Licensed Patents to use, market, sell, offer to sell,      make, have made and import Licensed Products in the Territory;      and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | Baxter      hereby grants to Licensee a world-wide, non-royalty bearing exclusive      right and license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under the      Intangible Property Rights to use, market, sell, offer to sell, make, have      made and import Licensed Products in the  Territory.” |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

|   | BAXTER      HEALTHCARE S.A.    |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                           |                                       |   |
|   | By:                            | /s/      John W. Cornell                   |   |
|   |                           | Name: John      W. Cornell            |   |
|   |                           | Title: Assistant      General Counsel |   |
|   |                           |                                       |   |
|   |                           |                                       |   |
|   | BAXTER      INTERNATIONAL INC. |                                       |
|   |                           |                                       |   |
|   | By:                            | /s/      John W. Cornell                   |   |
|   |                           | Name: John      W. Cornell            |   |
|   |                           | Title: Assistant      General Counsel |   |

----
Exhibit - 10.29 WOOF Q4






EXHIBIT 10.29


SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION


Annual Base Salaries  
The executive officers of VCA Antech., Inc., are paid the following annual base salaries: 
	
			
	Name
	Title
	Base Salary

	Robert L. Antin (1)
	Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer 
	$965,000

	Arthur J. Antin (1)
	Chief Operating Officer & Senior Vice President 
	$615,000

	Tomas W. Fuller (1)
	Chief Financial Officer, Vice President & Secretary 
	$415,000

	Neil Tauber (1)
	Senior Vice President
	$415,000

	Josh Drake
	President, Antech Diagnostics
	$352,000




  
(1) Please refer to the employment agreements and other agreements of these executive officers, each of which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, for the other terms and conditions of their employment.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, R.B. Harris,  President of Sales Strategies,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended  December
31, 2002 (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 the Company.



Dated:    September 22, 2003




                                         /s/ R. B. Harris
                                         ----------------
                                         R. B. Harris, President/Director
# 2022-32 Occupational Directory

# Definitions

https://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_doc.htmhttps://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/forms/emp
#### MARSHWOOD CO. v. JAMIE MILLS, Inc. et al.

Civ. No. 27385.

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

Sept. 12, 1950.

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

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

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an unfair competition action in which plaintiff asks for temporary and permanent injunction and damages in the sum of $200,000.

Plaintiff having received permission to take the deposition of defendants, served defendants with a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of certain business records. Defendants moved for an order limiting the scope of the subpoena and in an earlier memorandum, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 386, the Court did limit somewhat the scope of the subpoena.

Defendants now move for reconsideration of the previous order and ask for further limitation of the subpoena. They cite this Court’s decision in Knight-Morley v. Electroline Mfg. Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 400, as controlling.

In that case discovery of information relative to damages was denied because at the time of the order it did not appear that such information was necessary. In this case, however, it now appears that the computation of damages, if awarded, will not be made at a separate proceeding after the injunction hearing. In such a situation plaintiff must be prepared to present his full case, including evidence on damages, at one hearing. To do this, plaintiff must have the documents requested in the subpoena, or it cannot present an intelligent and accurate picture of its damages.

For this reason the motion will be denied.
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 143
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 144
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 145
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 146
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 147
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 148
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 149
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 150
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 151
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 152
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 153
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 154
Case 2:11-cv-04039-SRC-CLW Document 31 Filed 03/16/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 155
#### In the Matter of David Zaire, Petitioner, v Dale Artus, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[851 NYS2d 895]

*946Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier II disciplinary determination finding him guilty of interference with an employee. Our review of the record reflects that the determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report as well as testimony adduced at the hearing *(see Matter of Tafari v Selsky,*45 AD3d 1139, 1139 [2007]). Regarding petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for his filing of grievances, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Lashley v Lindsay,*45 AD3d 1073, 1073-1074 [2007]). Petitioner’s allegation that the Hearing Officer was biased is unsubstantiated in the record and, in any event, there is no indication that the determination in issue flowed from any purported bias *(see Matter of Burgess v Goord,*45 AD3d 1144, 1145 [2007]). We have examined petitioner’s remaining assertions, including his claim that the hearing was untimely, and find them to be unavailing.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.