alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10_4.htm


Exhibit 10.4










 




 


November 16, 2011


 


Tom Keefer


120 Outrigger Mall


Marina del Rey


CA 90292


 


Dear Tom


 


It is my pleasure to extend to you, effective December 1, 2011 (Effective Date) an offer for employment as Executive Vice President of Global Sales with Virtual Piggy, Inc. reporting to Jo Webber.  You will work out of the Los Angeles area.


 


In consideration for your employment, Virtual Piggy agrees to pay you a bi-weekly base salary of $6,346.00.  You will be entitled to annual incentive compensation based upon your achievement of mutually agreeable goals.  Your compensation package will also include 250,000 Employee stock options to be granted on December 1, 2011 at market value, as well as an additional 250,000, at market value, on 4/1/2012, if employed with us on that day.  These options will vest over three years.  In addition, the Company offers you the following benefits:


 



	
·

	
Four weeks of paid  vacation time








	
·

	
Entitlement to the Company Health Care plan which will be established in January 2012








	
·

	
Reimbursement for approved reasonable business expenses incurred on behalf of the Company.  Detailed receipts are required for all reimbursable expenses.












Virtual Piggy, Inc. is an at-will employer, and neither you nor Virtual Piggy is bound to continue the employment relationship if either chooses, at its will, to end the relationship at any time.


 


This offer is contingent upon your ability to provide all acceptable documentation under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which requires Virtual Piggy to verify that each employee hired is legally entitled to work in the United States, Virtual Piggy’s receipt of satisfactory results of your background check, as well as your execution of a non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements in the standard form utilized by Virtual Piggy, Inc. for its employees.


 


Please indicate your acceptance by signing and faxing a copy of this letter to (215) 247-1032 and forwarding the original to Human Resources at our Corporate office by US Mail.  The mailing address is 15 West Highland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19118.


 


I am excited for you to join us at Virtual Piggy as we build this company.  I believe that you will make a strong contribution.  If you have any questions regarding the details of this offer, please do not hesitate to contact me.


 


Best Regards,


 


 


 


/s/ Jo Webber


 


Jo Webber


Chairman, Virtual Piggy Inc.,


 


 


 


 


In Acceptance,


 




	/s/ Tom Keefer	11/16/2011	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Tom Keefer	Date	 





 


 



Virtual Piggy Inc., 15W Highland Ave, Philadelphia PA 19118
# 18SUMM1_13

# image1.png
#### David Lang, Appellant, v Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 691]

Carpinello, J.

Plaintiff was injured in the home of John Durbin and Elizabeth Durbin after being shot in the eye with a “paint ball” by Richard Bachman who, at that time, had been living there for several weeks.* Plaintiff thereafter obtained a default judgment against Bachman for which he now seeks to recover under the Durbins’ homeowners insurance policy issued by defendant *(see*
      *1069
      *Lang v Hanover Ins. Co.,*309 AD2d 1123 [2003], *affd*3 NY3d 350 [2004]). Finding that Bachman was not an insured under the terms of this policy, Supreme Court declared that defendant had no obligation to satisfy the judgment and dismissed this action. Plaintiff now appeals.

Under the subject homeowners insurance policy, an insured includes “persons under the age of 21 and in the care of [the Durbins or a relative].” Here, the record establishes that, although Bachman was a resident of the Durbin home under the age of 21, they had not assumed any responsibility for him *(see New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Sweet,*16 AD3d 1013 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 704 [2005]; *Pattengell v Welsh,*81 AD2d 831 [1981], *affd*54 NY2d 917 [1981]; *see also Korson v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co.,*39 AD3d 483 [2007]; *Chautauqua Patrons Ins. Assn. v Ross,*38 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2007]). At the time of the incident, Bachman was 20 years old, had finished his schooling and was looking for full-time employment. Indeed, according to him, the reason he moved out of his father’s apartment and into the Durbin residence was because he was always there anyway and it was “lj]ust cooler to live with [his] friends” *(see*n, *supra).*Moreover, again according to Bachman, during the time period he resided with the Durbins, he did his own laundry, paid his own bills, took care of himself the few times he was sick and paid rent when he had the money.

While the Durbins’ testimony differed on some of these points, it nevertheless established that Bachman was simply a “boarder” in their home and that they did not undertake any financial, disciplinary or emotional responsibility for him *(see*n, *supra).*Thus, because Bachman was not “in the care of” the Durbins within the meaning of the policy, Supreme Court properly declared that defendant was not required to satisfy plaintiff’s judgment against him.

Plaintiffs remaining arguments are unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Bachman was a friend of the Durbins’ son. On the day of the accident, Bachman, the son and another friend all lived in the house. All three were expected to pay rent.
S07Y1202, S07Y1204, S07Y1239.

#### IN THE MATTER OF D. DANIEL KLECKLEY (three cases).

(651 SE2d 731)

Decided October 9, 2007

Reconsideration denied November 5, 2007.

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

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on three notices of discipline filed against D. Daniel Kleckley. Each seeks disbarment. Kleckley failed to timely file notices of rejection and therefore he has no right to an evidentiary hearing and is subject to such discipline as the Court may determine. Bar Rules 4-208.1; 4-208.3.

Pursuant to the default, the admitted facts show that Kleckley was retained by three separate clients to represent them in civil matters between October 2004 and February 2006. Kleckley received retainer fees and promised to file actions on behalf of his clients. However, he failed to file the actions (although in one instance he represented to the client that he had), failed to return the clients’ phone calls or otherwise communicate with them, failed to return the clients’ papers, and failed to return the fees paid. One client obtained a judgment against Kleckley and he has failed to pay that judgment. Additionally, in two of the cases Kleckley failed to respond to the notices of investigations.

Kleckley’s actions constitute violations of Rules 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.16, and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). A violation of Rules 1.2 and 1.3 is punishable by disbarment and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16, and 9.3 is a public reprimand. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Kleckley’s actions demonstrate a pattern of misconduct and disregard for the disciplinary process. Accordingly, we agree that disbarment is the proper sanction.

It is hereby ordered that the name of D. Daniel Kleckley be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Kleckley is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 4.1
    English Translation of Chinese Original
  Year 2011
    Performance Contract with Management of PetroChina Company
    Limited
  Offeree: Name: ZHOU, Jiping


Offeror: Name: JIANG, Jiemin


Term of the Contract: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011Title:  President of PetroChina Company Limited
    (PetroChina)


Title:  Chairman of the Board of Directors of
    PetroChina


Date of Execution:
    ,
    2011   DepartmentsKey Performance











Actual


Providing theIndices


Indices (KPI)


Weight (%)


Measurement


Target


Performance


NumbersProfits Indices85%


Rate of return of the
    invested capital
    (ROIC)


30


%


8.8Economic value
    added (EVA)


10


In 100 million RMB


462.5Net income (NI)


10


In 100 million RMB


1167.9





Budget Management
    DepartmentFree cash flow (FCF)


15


In 100 million RMB


-923.8Domestic full cost for
    oil


5


US$/barrel


27.18 (of which, the unit oil
    and gas lifting cost shall be
    US$10.48)Full processing cost for
    oil


5


RMB/ton


225.0Marketing cost for oil


5


RMB/ton


289.45Gap between the
    actual capital
    expenditure and
    budget


5


%


±5





Planning DepartmentOperating Indices15%


Rate of crude oil
    reserves replacement


10





oil: 1natural gas: 2 (domesticstandard)





Planning DepartmentEnergy and water
    conservation


5


10,000 cubic
    meter/10,000 TCE


Energy conservation: 90Water conservation: 1600





Quality Management
    and Energy
    Conservation
    DepartmentIndices for control


Safety and
    environmental
    protection


employee death
    £
    0.0204 person/million manhours
    extraordinarily serious safe production accidents = 0; and
    extraordinarily serious environmental accidents=0.


Comprehensive
    performance expressed in
    marks to be increased by 5
    marks if achieving the target
    for the relevant index for
    control, and to be reduced
    by 5 marks if failing to
    achieve the target for the
    relevant index for control.


Safety and
    Environmental
    Protection
    DepartmentInternal control


Meeting the requirement





Internal Control and
    Risk Management
    Department   Signature
    of Offeree: ZHOU JIping
    Signature of Offeror: JIANG Jiemin
### THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-1312

May 5, 2015

Mr. Philip Durst

Deats Durst Owen & Levy, P.L.L.C.

1204 San Antonio, Suite 203

Austin, TX 78701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Mr. G. Mark Jodon

Littler Mendelson PC

1301 McKinney, Suite 1900

Houston, TX 77010

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 13-0882

Court of Appeals Number: 01-12-00660-CV

Trial Court Number: 2007-27181

Style: SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 5, DAN

SCHLADEMAN, AND SUSAN STRUBBE

v.

PROFESSIONAL JANITORIAL SERVICE OF HOUSTON, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed is a certified copy of our cost bill showing charges and payments as reflected by

the record for your use in settlement between the parties.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

cc: Mr. Christian J. Ward (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Christopher Prine (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Chris Daniel (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
ex10_25.htm











Exhibit 10.25







Journal Communications Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


Amended as of February 12, 2013 (1)


 




	
Cash Compensation

	 	 
	
Annual Retainer Fee (2)

	 	$30,000	 
	
Meeting Fees:

	 	 	 
	
Per Meeting

	 	$1,500	 
	
Teleconference Meeting

	 	$1,000	 
	  	 	 	 
	  	 	 	 
	
Committee Retainers

	 	 	 
	
Lead Director/Nominating and Corporate Governance

	 	$15,000	 
	
Committee Chair (2)

	 	 	 
	
Audit Committee Chair (2)

	 	$10,000	 
	
Compensation Committee Chair (2)

	 	$7,500	 
	  	 	 	 
	
Equity Compensation

	 	 	 
	
Annual Share Grant (at Annual Meeting of Shareholders)

	 	
$50,000 value (3)

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Stock Ownership Guideline

	 	
25,000 shares (4)

	 







 


Notes:








	
  

	
(1)

	
In the event a new director is elected to the board after the date of the Shareholders’ Annual Meeting, but before the next Shareholders’ Annual Meeting, the new director will receive on a pro-rata basis the annual cash retainer fee and the annual share grant.  The pro-rata portion of the annual cash retainer fee (less the amount of such fee to be paid in regular quarterly installments) will be paid at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.  The pro-rata portion of the annual share grant will be made at the time of the first Shareholders’ Annual Meeting after the new director is elected to the board.  In the event the new director chairs a committee upon becoming a member of the board, the new director also will be paid the committee retainer on a pro-rata basis.













	
  

	
(2)

	
Paid in 4 equal installments at first 4 regularly scheduled board meetings during each calendar year.













	
  

	
(3)

	
Full value unrestricted grant of Class B common stock with a grant date of the date of each Shareholders’ Annual Meeting.













	
  

	
(4)

	
Non-employee directors are required to own 25,000 shares of stock in Journal Communications.  New directors should meet the guideline within 5 years following the date they are elected to the board.
December 20, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

FLORENTINO ROBERT EN GLISH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00420

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformatio n by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is REFORMED , to read as follows: we reform the judgment of the trial court to reflect the administrative fees assessed in the amount of $882. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as REFORMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 (the "Report"), I, M. Patricia Kane, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

               1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                    13(a) and 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 operation of the Company.




                                                   /s/ M. Patricia Kane
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   M. Patricia Kane
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  August 23, 2006


This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent as shall be expressly set forth by
specific reference in such filing.




                                       35
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

136405 Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. SHELLY M. KRASTES, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, J ustices and

AUTO CLUB OF MICHIGAN, Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 136405 COA: 276545 WCAC: 02-000351 HASELEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., RELIANCE IN SURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MICHIGAN PROPERTY & GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, Defendants-Appellees, and

GRAYCOR SERVICES , AMERICAN RISK FUNDING INSURANCE COMPANY, FLUOR CORPORATION, and CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendants.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal.

0917 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.

September 24, 2008

Clerk
#### GOODMAN v. LANE, et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 23, 1952.

*177Satterlee, Warfield & Stephens, New York City, F. W. H. Adams, Philip C. Smith, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Allin, Riggs & Shaughnessy, New York City, for defendant Friendship Center.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff has served notice to take the deposition of defendant, Friendship Center, Inc., by its President, Cl'ara Lane (named as a defendant although not served with process). Defendant moves to modify the notice to provide for examination “by such officer having knowledge of the facts as may be present in the State of New York,” or, that the deposition 'of the defendant Clara Lane be taken in Los Angeles, upon the condition that plaintiff pay the expenses and counsel fees of the defendant.

The choice of the officer or agent of a party to be examined rests with the party desiring to take the testimony and not with the one whose testimony is sought. This is particularly appropriate in the instant case since the officer signed and negotiated the agreements sought to be rescinded in this action.

The moving papers merely indicate that the defendant’s president is temporarily out of New York, apparently attending to business of the defendant. Since the testimony sought is that of the corporation, a New York corporation, the proper place for the examination is in New York City, where its principal office and place of business is located. Cohen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 419.

The motion is denied. However, the order to be entered may provide, at the option of the defendant, upon giving notice to plaintiff within five days after the entry of the order, that if its president decides not to come to New York City for examination, the deposition may be taken in Los Angeles upon condition that the defendant shall pay the expenses and counsel fees of the • plaintiff, to be determined by the Court. See Worth v. Trans World Films, Inc., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197; Machinoimport v. Clark Equipment Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 55.

Settle order on notice.
# 16SNR05_00

# image1.png
# cpsaat03
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139434 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139434 

 COA: 284626 

Washtenaw CC: 07-001678-FC 

GERARD DARAN-LOUIS DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# table14full07

&8Page &P of &N
# laucnty15

&8Page &P of &N
VICTOR WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2263

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Victor Wilson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted via conference call. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gilbert at (404) 338-7185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, February 25, 2009, at 3 p.m. 
Eastern Time via a conference call. If you would like to have the Joint 
Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call (404) 338-
7185 or write Susan Gilbert, TAP Office, Stop 211-D, 401 West Peachtree 
Street NW., Atlanta, GA, 30308-3520, or Fax to (404) 338-8691, or you 
can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. For information to join 
the Joint Committee meeting, contact Susan Gilbert.
    The agenda will include the following: Discussion of issues and 
responses brought to the Joint Committee, office report, and discussion 
of annual meeting.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-162 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KYRA JEMUEL MOBLEY o/b/o JULIANNA MOBLEY

- BOYD

, Appellant,

v.

LEONARD LAMAR BOYD, JR.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3031

[ February 16, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Susan Greenhawt, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No s

. DVCE21

- 006689 and DVCE21

- 006690

.

Kyra Jemuel Mobley, Plantation, pro se.

Leonard Lamar Boyd, Jr., Oakland Park, pro se.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

G ROSS

, K UNTZ and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SATURNA INVESTMENT TRUST

POWER OFATTORNEY

 

The undersigned Trustees of Saturna Investment Trust, a MassachusettsBusiness Trust organized under the laws of the State of Washington, proposing tofile with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, one or more amendments to the Registration Statement on FormN-1A and related Amendments to the Registration Statement of the Trust under theInvestment Company Act of 1940 ("Amendments") do hereby separately and severallyappoint and constitute Nicholas F. Kaiser, whose signature appears below:

/s/ Nicholas F. Kaiser

Nicholas F. Kaiser

his true and lawful attorney for him and in his name, place and stead to signin the capacity of a Trustee of the Trust such Amendments and any and alladditional amendments thereto, and to file such amendments and all instrumentsnecessary or incidental thereto with the Securities and Exchange Commissionunder such 1933 and 1940 Acts.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand and seal this18th day of December, 2002.

 

/s/ A. Herbert Ershig	

A. Herbet Ershig			

 

/s/ Gary A. Goldfogel 	

Gary A. Goldfogel					 

			

 

/s/ John E. Love		

John E. Love

 

/s/ John S. Moore		

John S. Moore