alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
W. Bruce Johnson Employment Letter



 Exhibit 10.30 
 [SEARS HOLDINGS LETTERHEAD] 
 January 28, 2008 
 Mr. W. Bruce Johnson 
 Dear Bruce, 
 The purpose of this letter is to confirm our offer for you to serve as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of Sears Holdings Corporation, effective as of February 3, 2008. Your new compensation package will be effective as of
February 3, 2008. 
 The key changes to your compensation package are as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 Annual base salary at a rate of $900,000. 


  

	 	•	 	 Annual target incentive opportunity of 100% of your annual base salary. The annual incentive for each plan year will be payable by April 15 of the following
year; provided that you are actively employed by Sears Holdings at the payment date. 


  

	 	•	 	 You will receive a grant of restricted stock valued at $1,000,000 under the Sears Holdings 2006 Stock Plan. The number of restricted shares granted will be
determined using the market closing price of Sears Holdings shares on the grant date. The grant date will be February 3, 2008. This restricted shares granted will be scheduled to vest in two installments, with 50% vesting as of the last day of
the 2008 fiscal year and the remaining 50% vesting as of the last day of the 2009 fiscal year; provided that you are actively employed by Sears Holdings as of the applicable vesting date. 


  

	 	•	 	 Except as provided herein, the remaining elements of your compensation and benefits package, as in effect on February 2, 2008, remain unchanged.



 By this letter, you acknowledge and agree that to the extent this position does not become permanent and you are asked to resume your
position as Executive Vice President, Supply Chain and Operations or another reasonably similar senior role, such resumption would not constitute Good Reason under the term of your February 2006 Executive Severance/Non-Compete Agreement. 

To accept this offer and the terms provided herein, please sign below and return this letter to me. 
 Sincerely, 
  

					
	Edward S. Lampert	 		 	
	Chairman	 		 	
			
	Confirmed and Accepted:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ W. Bruce Johnson
	 		 	2/27/2008
	W. Bruce Johnson	 		 	Date
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

 

____________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice October 25, 2006 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129733(89) Marilyn Kelly 130064 Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

HARTMAN & EICHHORN BUILDING Justices 

COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, 

 SC: 129733 

v COA: 249847 

Oakland CC: 2001-032203-CK 

STEVEN DAILEY and JANINE DAILEY, 

Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs/ 

Third-Party Plaintiffs/Appellees,

and 

GEORGE H. PRESLEY, and ABN-AMRO,

d/b/a STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, 

 Defendants, 

and 

JEFFRY R. HARTMAN, 

 Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. 

ARTHUR Y. LISS and BEVERLY LISS,

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants/ 

Appellees, 

 SC: 130064 
 v COA: 266326 
 Oakland CC: 03-046587-CK 

LEWISTON-RICHARDS, INC.,

and JASON P. LEWISTON, 

 Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs/ 

Appellants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Consumer Law Section 

Council of the State Bar of Michigan for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered 

and it is GRANTED. 

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. 

October 25, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.26

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

 

THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 12th day of  May, 2010, by and among Roundy’s Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc. (f/k/a/ “Roundy’s, Inc.”), a Wisconsin corporation (“Roundy’s”) and Robert A. Mariano (“Executive”).

 

The Company, Roundy’s and Executive are parties to an “Executive Agreement” dated as of June 6, 2002, and amended as of February 21, 2007,  June 5, 2008 and March 25, 2009 (collectively, as amended, the “Original Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, Executive has acquired certain shares of the capital stock of the Company and is employed by Roundy’s.  The parties wish to amend the Original Agreement pursuant to the terms herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree that Section 13(a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to change the word “eighth” as it appears in that section to “ninth.”  In all other respects the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fourth Amendment, as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
ROUNDY’S   ACQUISITION CORP.
    	
ROUNDY’S   SUPERMARKETS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   John R. Willis
    	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Edward G. Kitz
    
	
 
    	
John   R. Willis, Vice President & Sec’y
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Edward   G. Kitz, Group V. P. - Legal, Risk & Treasury
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
/s/   Robert A. Mariano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Robert   A. Mariano
    


 

By their signatures below, the undersigned “Investors” (as that term is defined in the Original Agreement), collectively holding a majority of the common and preferred stock of the Company, hereby consent to and approve the foregoing Fourth Amendment to Executive Agreement.

 

	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS III, L.P.
    	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS DUTCH III-A, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   Avy H. Stein
    	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Avy H. Stein
    
	
 
    	
Avy   H. Stein, Manager
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Avy   H. Stein, Manager
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
WILLIS STEIN &   PARTNERS DUTCH III-B, L.P.
    	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS III-C, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:   
    	
/s/   Avy H. Stein
    	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   Avy H. Stein
    
	
 
    	
Avy   H. Stein, Manager
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Avy   H. Stein, Manager
<page>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended November 30, 2002 of Arrow International, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
(the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlin Miller, Jr., the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                         /s/ Marlin Miller, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Marlin Miller, Jr.
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)

                                       January 13, 2003


                                      -31-
J

- S41028

- 18

____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RICHARD WALTERS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2844 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order August 28, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0001282

- 2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 06 , 2018 While I am constrained to agree with the Majority’s decision to reverse the PCRA court’s Order and remand for resentencing, I write separately to
emp ha size that in Co mmonwealth v. DiMatteo , 177 A.3d 18 2, 183 (Pa. 2018) , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review “ to assess what relief, if any, a criminal defendant is entitled to when he raises an illegal sentencing challenge premised on Alleyne v. United States , 57 0 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) in a timely petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

– 9546, when, at the time Alleyne was decided, the defendant's judgment of sentence was not yet final. ” C iting Commonwealth v. Newman , 99 A.3d. 86, 90 (Pa. 2014) the Court stressed that “ Alleyne applied only to cases pending on direct review as of June 17, 2013, the date of the Alleyne decision. ” DiMatteo , 177 A.3d at 187

– 88J

- S41028

- 18

- 2

-

( italics added, boldface type in origina l). The Court ultimately held that its prior decision in Commonwealth v. Washington , 142 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2016) did not bar a petitioner “serving an illegal sentence from relief when such relief is sought in a timely PCRA petition and the judgment of sentence was not final when Alleyne was announced.” Id. at 191

. The phrase “as of” is “used to indicate a time or date at wh ich something beg ins of ends.” As of Definition , Merriam Webster.com, http.//dictionary/browse/as is (last visited Aug. 22, 2018). Although Appellant did not file a direct appeal, as the Majority explains, he had until June 17, 2013, to do so. As such, his case was pending on direct rev iew until the end of business on June 17, 2013 ; therefore, because his judgment of
sentence was not yet final when Alleyne was decided and the i nstant , first PCRA petition was timely

- filed, Alleyne is applicable to Appellant’s case
ret roactively. See Commonwealth v. Ruiz , 131 A.3d 54, 60

- 61 (Pa.Super. 2015)

.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2018.

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

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 09, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0514. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. NEW IMAGE TOWING AND 

RECOVERY, INC..

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

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

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

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV02366
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Alan StockAlan StockChief Executive Officer  /s/ Carol WaldmanName:
    Carol WaldmanTitle:
    Notary Public
EXHIBIT
10.25
 ARBITRON INC. 2008 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN
NON-STATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 [Name]
    Grant of Option
 [Shares] not
 Option Exercise Price
 $___
 Duration of Option and Time of Exercise
 Initial Period of Exercisability
 Termination of Employment
 Termination Due to Death or Disability




---



##### 



Termination for Reasons Other Than Death or Disability
 Change in Control
 Impact of Change in Control
 Authority to Modify Change in Control Provisions
 Manner of Option Exercise
 Notice
 2




---



##### 



Payment
 Rights and Restrictions of Optionee; Transferability
 Employment
 Rights as a Stockholder; Effect on Running the Business
 Restrictions on Transfer
 Restrictions Regarding Employment
  3




---



##### 



Securities Law and Other Restrictions
 4




---



##### 



Withholding Taxes
  Certain Definitions
   Subject to Plan
  Miscellaneous
 5




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Governing Law
 Entire Agreement
 Amendment and Waiver
  ARBITRON INC.By:Name:Title: 6




---



##### 



PARTICIPANTS ACCEPTANCE
  PARTICIPANT:
 7
EXHIBIT 12.1



|                                                    |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | ----- | ------------------------ | ---- | - | ----- |  | ---- | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                                    |  | Three Months EndedJune 30, |       | Six Months EndedJune 30,
|                                                    |  | 2004                       |       |                          | 2003 |   | 2004  |  | 2003
|DETERMINATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Income before provision for income taxes            |  |                            | ($541 | )                        |      | $ | 2,163 |  | $    | 1,065  |  | $ | 6,578 
|Fixed charges                                       |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense                                    |  |                            | 7,484 |                          |      |   | 4,329 |  |      | 14,933 |  |   | 8,679 
|                                                    |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Earnings before fixed charges                       |  |                            | 6,943 |                          |      |   | 6,762 |  |      | 15,998 |  |   | 15,797
|Fixed charges                                       |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Interest expense                                    |  |                            | 7,484 |                          |      |   | 4,329 |  |      | 14,933 |  |   | 8,679 
|                                                    |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Total fixed charges                                 |  | $                          | 7,484 |                          |      | $ | 4,599 |  | $    | 14,933 |  | $ | 9,219 
|                                                    |  |                            |       |                          |      |   |       |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                  |  |                            | 0.93X |                          |      |   | 1.47X |  |      | 1.07X  |  |   | 1.71X
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

November 19, 2015

Hon. Sterling Harmon

Appellate Division Chief

219 North 6th Street, Suite 200

Waco, TX 76701

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Abelino (Abel) Reyna

McLennan County District Attorney

219 N. 6th Street, Suite 200

Waco, TX 76701

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Doyle Lynn Young

100 N. 6th Street, Ste. 313

Waco, TX 76701

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00038

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 2011

- 2499

- C1

Style: Allan Latoi Story v. The State of Texas

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date

.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: 19 th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

H on. Jon Gimble , McLennan County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Billy Ray Stubblefield , Presiding Judge, Third Administrative Judicial

Region (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-10-091-CV

IN RE BRANDY ANN BOUNDS	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and is of the opinion that all relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for habeas corpus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  WALKER and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  March 30, 2010
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 22, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14275

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00051-CR-4-RH-WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

NICHOLAS BRYANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 22, 2006)

Before CARNES, BARKETT, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Bryant appeals his convictions for: (1) conspiracy to possess with
2

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) possession with

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D); and

(3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Bryant argues that his motion to suppress the

evidence, which was seized from his house pursuant to a search warrant, should

have been granted because: (1) there was no reference in the warrant affidavit to

the confidential informant’s (CI) veracity, reliability, or prior use; (2) the affiant

made a recklessly false statement when he said that he had reason to believe that

“illegal narcotics are being kept and sold” at Bryant’s residence; and (3) there was

no competent evidence to show ongoing drug activity or that Bryant was connected

to it from police surveillance of another individual. 

We review the district court’s determination that an affidavit contains

probable cause de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v.

Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000). We give due deference to the

inferences that the district court and law enforcement officers drew from the facts. 

Id. 

Based upon this record we cannot say that the district court erred. Because

there was sufficient corroborating information that was not stale in the search

warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, even assuming arguendo
3

that there was falsity in the officer’s statement, the district court did not err by

denying Bryant’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered July 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00848
- CV LUCKY MERK, LLC D/B/ A GREENVILLE BAR & G RILL, ET AL . , Appellant s V. GREENVILLE LANDMARK VENTURE, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the County C ourt at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10
- 02411
- D 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellants’ July 18, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellants shall file their reply brief on or before August 7, 2013.

/s/ CA ROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 639 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 639

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 include in any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and 
imposes increased costs on other Federal agencies an offset from funds 
 available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
       the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2015

Mr. Flake (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
 Coats, and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
 include in any proposed rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions and 
imposes increased costs on other Federal agencies an offset from funds 
 available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
       the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Agency PAYGO for Greenhouse Gases 
Act''.

SEC. 2. OFFSETS FOR INCREASED COSTS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR REGULATIONS 
              LIMITING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

    (a) In General.--If the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes a rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions 
and imposes increased costs on 1 or more other Federal agencies, the 
Administrator shall include in the proposed rule an offset from funds 
available to the Administrator for all projected increased costs that 
the proposed rule would impose on other Federal agencies.
    (b) No Offsets.--If the Administrator proposes a rule that limits 
greenhouse gas emissions and imposes increased costs on 1 or more other 
Federal agencies but does not provide an offset in accordance with 
paragraph (1), the Administrator may not finalize the rule until the 
promulgation of the final rule is approved by law.
    (c) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency proposes a 
rule described in subsection (a)--
            (1) a Federal agency on which the rule imposes increased 
        costs may not pass the costs imposed by the rule on to any rate 
        payer of the Federal agency; and
            (2) the proposed rule--
                    (A) shall be considered to be a rule that imposes 
                increased costs on a Federal agency; and
                    (B) shall be subject to this section.
                                 <all>
```