alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TRU.10.29.2011-Ex10.1






                                   Exhibit 10.1                                


October 27, 2011
Ms. Monika Merz
President and CEO, Toys “R” Us, Japan


Dear Monika,


Congratulations on your promotion to the position of President - Toys “R” Us, Asia effective November 6, 2011, reporting to me.


This letter highlights some of the major components of the compensation and benefits you will receive in your new position.


Your new base salary will be CAD625,000 per annum.  That represents an increase of CAD50,000 (8.7%).  Your next merit review will be in April 2013.


Your incentive target will increase to 110% of base salary effective November 6, 2011.  Based on your new salary, this equates to an annual target amount of CAD687,500, giving you an annual total cash compensation target (base salary plus target incentive) of CAD1,312,500.  That represents an increase of CAD162,500 (14.1%) over your current total cash compensation target. 


Under the provisions of our current plan, bonuses are typically paid during April.   Note that you must be employed on the payment date in order to be eligible to receive any incentive payout.  Your incentive bonus will be consistent with the incentive program for your position and level in effect as of the end of each fiscal year.  Also, please note that like all other Company compensation and benefits plans, all incentive plans are subject to change at any time with or without notice.


Your participation in all other Company benefit plans and program will remain the same.


Monika, I think you understand the uniqueness of our Company and the people who make it what it is.  We are confident that your career at Toys "R" Us, Inc. will continue to be highly rewarding and I eagerly look forward to your continued contributions.  Please understand that nothing in this letter is intended to change the “at will” nature of your employment relationship, which means that either you or the Company can terminate your employment, for any reason or no reason, at any time with or without notice.  In addition, all benefits referenced in this letter are subject to the applicable Plan documents and may be changed by the Company at any time.  




Sincerely,




/s/Gerald Storch        
Gerald Storch
Chairman and CEO








So I have an indication that you have received and read this letter and understand the conditions outlined, please sign and date the below and return the original letter to me.






/s/ Monika Merz                                                November 7, 2011            
Monika Merz                        Date




cc:    Lynn Barclay
Exhibit 10.2 Truman Assignment






EXHIBIT 10.2




ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to SIR TRUMAN FARM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor's rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated November 3, 2011, as amended to the date hereof (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between Truman Farm Villas, L.P. (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in Grandview, Missouri, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).


Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee.  This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment , and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 


(SIGNATURES APPEARS ON FOLLOWING PAGE)









WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this December 1, 2011. 




ASSIGNOR:


STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., 
a California corporation


By:    /s/ Ana Marie del Rio                          


Name:    Ana Marie del Rio                              


Title:    Vice President                                     


ASSIGNEE:


SIR TRUMAN FARM, LLC
an Delaware limited liability company


By:     Steadfast Income Advisor, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability         
company, its Manager
                            
                        
By:    /s/ Rodney F. Emery             


Name:    Rodney F. Emery                  


Title:    CEO and President               

























Exhibit A


DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND




That certain real property described as:
 
See attached.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerardo HERNANDEZ-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10087.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Don B. Overall, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Evo A. Deeoncini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerardo Hernandez-Solis, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Saul M. Huerta, Jr., Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Def end ant-App ell an t.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gerardo Hernandez-Solis appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Hernandez-Solis’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Because Hernandez-Solis knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1791

___________

Buck Green, individually and on *

behalf of all others similarly situated; *

Joyce Moton, individually and on *

behalf of all others similarly situated, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Gary J. Stangler; Carmen Schulze; *

Richard Koon; Don Holt; Louise * [Unpublished]

Critten; D. Wayne Osgoode; Charles *

Diamond, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 20, 1997

 Filed: July 9, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Buck Green and Joyce Moton appeal the district court’s grant of

1

summary
-2-

judgment to defendants in their civil rights action. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions, we affirm the judgment

of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Moton from the appeal is granted.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E L O IS A D E L A C R U Z B H A G W A N I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72883 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 942- 155 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , L E A V Y , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E l o i sa D e L a C ru z B h ag w an i , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f th e P h i l i p p i n es, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng h e rmo t i o n t o r e o p e n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, and 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72883 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g B h a g w an i’s m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y bec ause i tw as fi l ed nearly tw el ve ye ar s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) ( m ot i on t o reopen m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n ni ne tyday s of

f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l ) , and B ha gw ani di d nots how s he a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e df o re qu itab le to llin g , s e e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d 889, 897 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( de a dl i ne f orf i l i ng m ot i on t o r e ope n c an be e qui t abl yt ol l e d “ w he n pe t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f r aud, ore rr or , a s l ong a s the pe t i t i one ra c t s w i th due di l i ge nc e ” ) . B ha gw ani ’ s due p r o c e s s c la im th e r e f

o r e f a ils . Se e La ta v . I

NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( r e qu ir in g e rr o rto p r e v a il o n adu e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e ) . B h a g w an i’s m o tio n to s tayh e rr e m o v a l is d e n ie d . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 09a0539n.06

Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

PLANNED PARENTHOOD

SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION;

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF

NORTHEAST OHIO; PLANNED

PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL

OHIO; PRETERM; DR. ROSLYN

KADE; AND DR. LASZLO SOGOR,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

TED STRICKLAND, Governor of the

State of Ohio, 

Defendant,

RICHARD CORDRAY, Attorney

General of Ohio, and JOSEPH T.

DETERS, Hamilton County

Prosecuting Attorney,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

O R D E R

Before: MOORE, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case involves the constitutionality of

Ohio Revised Code (“O.R.C.”) § 2919.123, which regulates the use of mifepristone to provide

medical abortions. In 2004 the district court issued a preliminary injunction because it found that

the statute lacked a health exception. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 337 F. Supp.
Nos. 06-4422, 06-4423

- 2 -

2d 1040 (S.D. Ohio 2004). We vacated the injunction in part and remanded to the district court for

further consideration ofthe breadth ofthe injunction and ofthe other argumentsraised by the parties.

Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region v. Taft, 444 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2006). On remand, the

district court granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs based on

its conclusion that § 2919.123 was unconstitutionally vague. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region

v. Taft, 459 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D. Ohio 2006).

On appeal from the permanent injunction, we issued an order certifying two questions to the

Ohio Supreme Court: “(1) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform

abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described

in the FDA approval letter?” and (2) “Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who

perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage

indications described in the drug’s final printed labeling?” Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region

v. Strickland, 531 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2008). The Ohio Supreme Court recently answered both of

these certified questions. Cordray v. Planned Parenthood Cincinnati Region, Slip Op. No. 2009-

Ohio-2972. In light of this opinion by the Ohio Supreme Court, we VACATE the permanent

injunction issued by the district court. The preliminary injunction that we AFFIRMED in part

remains in force as per our previous opinion. See Taft, 444 F.3d at 518. We REMAND the case to

the district court for consideration of the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion as well as issues identified

in our previous remand and any other issues that the parties may raise.
CMS ENERGY CORPORATION
 Year Ended December 312008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004(b)
    
    
    (c)
    
    
    (d)
    
    
    (e)Earnings as defined (a)Pretax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    449
    
    
    $
    (308
    )
    
    $
    (425
    )
    
    $
    (764
    )
    
    $
    98Exclude equity basis subsidiaries
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    (22
    )
    
    
    (14
    )
    
    
    (17
    )
    
    
    (88
    )Fixed charges as defined
    
    
    421
    
    
    
    480
    
    
    
    526
    
    
    
    531
    
    
    
    637Earnings as defined
    
    $
    869
    
    
    $
    150
    
    
    $
    87
    
    
    $
    (250
    )
    
    $
    647Fixed charges as defined (a)Interest on long-term debt
    
    $
    363
    
    
    $
    406
    
    
    $
    483
    
    
    $
    506
    
    
    $
    560Estimated interest portion of lease rental
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    23
    
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    6
    
    
    
    4Other interest charges
    
    
    33
    
    
    
    51
    
    
    
    35
    
    
    
    19
    
    
    
    73Fixed charges as defined
    
    $
    421
    
    
    $
    480
    
    
    $
    526
    
    
    $
    531
    
    
    $
    637Preferred dividends
    
    
    17
    
    
    
    12
    
    
    
    11
    
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    11Combined fixed charges and preferred
dividends
    
    $
    438
    
    
    $
    492
    
    
    $
    537
    
    
    $
    541
    
    
    $
    648Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.06
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.01Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
charges and preferred dividends
    
    
    1.98
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Employment and median weekly earnings of women and men in 
management, professional, and related occupational group, 2008					


				
									          Women		                Men	

Occupational group							Employment     Median	     Employment     Median 	
										       weekly 			    weekly 
										       earnings			    earnings


Management, business, and financial operations occupations
	Management occupations						4,535,000	  $979	     6,687,000	     $1,384
	Business and financial operations occupations			2,928,000	  $885	     2,159,000	     $1,167
Professional and related occupations
	Computer and mathematical occupations				  828,000       $1,088	     2,516,000	     $1,320
	Architecture and engineering occupations			  334,000 	$1,001	     2,319,000	     $1,286
	Life, physical, and social science occupations			  477,000	  $931	       603,000	     $1,156
	Community and social services occupations			1,117,000	  $753	       791,000	       $860
	Legal occupations						  693,000	  $962	       506,000	     $1,696
	Education, training, and library occupations			4,883,000	  $818	     1,794,000	     $1,020
	Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations	  689,000	  $777	       882,000	       $951
	Healthcare practitioner and technical occupations		4,052,000	  $909	     1,362,000	     $1,210
EXHIBIT 3.1

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION  OF  NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

The
name of this corporation is: National Technical Systems, Inc.

The
purpose of this corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the
trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California Corporations Code.

The
name and address in the State of California of this corporation's initial agent for service of process is:



This
corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares; and the total number of shares which this corporation is authorized to issue is twenty million (20,000,000).

The
liability of the directors of this corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California law.

This
corporation is authorized to provide indemnification of agents (as defined in Section 317 of the Corporations Code) to the fullest extent permissible under California law.

Any
repeal or modification of the provisions of Articles V or VI or this Article VII by the shareholders of the corporation shall not adversely affect any right or protection of a director or
agent of this corporation existing at the time of such repeal or modification.

No
holder of any class of stock of this corporation shall be entitled to cumulate votes at any election of directors of this corporation.

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 7, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-21109 Summary Calendar

GORDON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LAWRENCE HODGES, Warden II; CHARLES WILLIAMSON, Assistant Warden; RICHARD GUNNELS, Major; CRAIG FISHER, Captain; MR. ROSADO, Lieutenant; MONTGOMERY, Lieutenant; J. GUTIERREZ, Sergeant; B. CARDOZA, UGI Sergeant; V. J. GREIGER, Correction Officer; V. WILLIS KING, Correction Officer; GAIL THOMPSON, Law Library Supervisor; W. TAYLOR, Counsel Substitute; D. COLE, Warden I; M. MUNSELLE, Assistant Warden; JAMIE BAKER, Major; FREDERICK MERIDA, Captain; JOE PONDER, Captain; D. SNODGRASS; NELDA BUEHLER, UGI; ANTONIOUS FLANAGAN, Correctional Officer IV; W. SMITH, Correctional Officer IV; KELLI WARD, RGN V Griv INV; JANE M. COCKERHAM, Ombudsman; FRANK HOKE, ACT Administrator, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-03-CV-3672

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Gordon Johnson, Texas prisoner # 748915, appeals from the district court’s pre-trial order striking his original civilNo. 03-21109 -2- rights complaint and directing him to file an amended, concise complaint. This court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Click v. Abilene Nat’l Bank , 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir. 1987). The collateral order doctrine does not apply to the present case. See Exxon Chems. Am. v. Chao , 298 F.3d 464, 469 (5th Cir. 2002). Johnson’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder of
Colorado Interstate Gas Company:

     In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements in the Index
appearing under Item 14(a)(1) present fairly, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial position of Colorado Interstate Gas Company as of
December 31, 2001, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash
flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the
financial statement schedule listed in the index under Item 14(a)(2) presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements. These financial
statements and the financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the
Company's management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and the financial statement schedule based on our audit. We
conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, which require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

     As discussed in Notes 1 and 5, the Company adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, on January 1, 2001.

     As discussed in Note 8, the Company changed its actuarial measurement date
for measuring pension and other postretirement benefit obligations from December
31 to September 30.

     We also audited the adjustments described in Note 9 that were applied to
restate the disclosures of 2000 and 1999 segment information in the accompanying
financial statements to give retroactive effect to the change in reportable
segments. In our opinion, such adjustments are appropriate and have been
properly applied to the prior period financial statements.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
March 6, 2002