alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Edgen Murray Corporation Cash Bonus Plan.



 Exhibit 10.10 
 EDGEN MURRAY CORPORATION 
 Profit Sharing Example 

Year Ended December 2008 
 Cash Incentive Bonus
Computation: 
 The employee cash incentive bonus (“bonus”) is based on EDGEN MURRAY II, L.P. (“EDGEN MURRAY”) achieving its
target earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”). No bonus will be earned until EDGEN MURRAY has achieved 50% of the target EBITDA amount. Once the 50% level has been achieved, the bonus will
be earned as follows. For each percentage point achieved in excess of 50%, the employee will earn 2% of his/her target bonus. If the actual EDGEN MURRAY EBITDA exceeds 100% of target, the employee will continue to earn an additional 1% of the target
bonus for each additional 1% that EBITDA exceeds the target. 
 Employee: John 
 Annual Base Salary as of March 31, 2008: $25,000 
 Target Profit Sharing Bonus: 10% of Annual
Base Salary ($2,500) 
  

	 	I.	EDGEN MURRAY achieves 100% or less of target EBITDA; the bonus will be calculated as: 


(Percent of EBITDA Achieved – Minimum Percent) x 2 x Target Bonus Amount 

For example, if EDGEN MURRAY achieves 80% of EBITDA target, the bonus will be (80% – 50%) x 2 = 60% x $2,500 = $1,500

  

	 	II.	EDGEN MURRAY achieves greater than 100% of target EBITDA; the bonus will be calculated as: 


Target Bonus ($2,500) + (Percent of EBITDA achieved – 100%) = Bonus 

For example, if EDGEN MURRAY achieves 110% of target EBITDA, the bonus will be $2,500 + [(110% – 100%) x $2,500] = $2,750 

Important Note: To be eligible for the full amount of the cash incentive bonus, the employee must have been employed as of March 1, 2008, and
must still be employed at time(s) of payment. The profit sharing bonus will be paid on or about March 15, 2009. 








					
	 Target Bonus:
	  	$	 2,500	  

 Bonus Table: 
  

									
	 Percent of
Target EBITDA
	 	Percent of
Target Bonus Earned	 	 	$ Amount of
Bonus 
Earned	 
	0 to 50	 	 	0	% 	 	$	 	 
	51	 	 	2	% 	 	$	50	  
	60	 	 	20	% 	 	$	500	  
	70	 	 	40	% 	 	$	1,000	  
	80	 	 	60	% 	 	$	1,500	  
	90	 	 	80	% 	 	$	2,000	  
	100	 	 	100	% 	 	$	2,500	  
	110	 	 	110	% 	 	$	2,750	  
	120	 	 	120	% 	 	$	3,000	  

 All calculations shown are US Dollars. Actual payments will be converted to and paid in the 

currency in which you are normally paid.
Opinion issued July 12, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00527-CR

———————————

IN RE TYRONE COOK, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Tyrone Cook, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming that 

the trial court has not ruled upon certain pro se filings by relator.1 We deny the 

petition.

 

1 Relator identifies the underlying case as cause number 1371129-A in the 

182nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Maurice Elliott COX, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-5268.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 24, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Diana Pereira, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, *534Anne M. Hayes, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Elliott Cox appeals his 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(1) (2000). Cox was sentenced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2000) (“ACCA”). On appeal, Cox contends his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. Finding no error, we affirm.

Cox argues that the sentence imposed by the district court violated *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), because he was neither charged with the predicate convictions underpinning his sentence as an armed career criminal, nor did he admit to them. Secondly, he argues that the specific findings necessary to trigger the armed career criminal enhancement, namely whether a defendant’s predicate offenses were violent felonies or serious drug offenses and were committed on different occasions, should not be determined by relying on information in judicial records, but rather should be determined by a jury. Cox’s first argument is foreclosed by *Shepard v. United States,*544 U.S. 13, 20, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), in which the Supreme Court held that a district court may rely on the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes. *See also United States v. Cheek,*415 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir.2005). Cox’s second argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Thompson,*421 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2005), *cert. denied,*547 U.S. 1005,126 S.Ct. 1463, 164 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006), in which this court found that the nature of a particular offense as a violent felony and the date of a conviction are inherent in the conviction itself and conclusive judicial records. *Id.*at 284 n. 4, 286. Further, because one panel of this court may not overrule another, we decline Cox’s invitation to overrule *Thompson. See United States v. Ruhe,*191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir.1999). We therefore find no error in the district court’s classification of Cox as an armed career criminal.

Accordingly, we affirm Cox’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles L. MALONE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40033

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 2008.

Barry A. Bryant, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Troy Alan Hornsby, Miller, James, Miller & Hornsby, Texarkana, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Charles L. Malone has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Malone has filed a response, which includes claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Malone’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Malone’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. To the extent Malone moves to proceed pro se on appeal, his motion is DENIED. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Slip Op. 03 - 61

J U D G M E N T

 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr., Judge

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ST. EVE INTERNATIONAL, INC., :

 Plaintiff, :

v. : Court No. 03-00068

UNITED STATES, : Defendant. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The plaintiff having commenced this case to contest

notices on Customs Form 4647 to redeliver specified women's wear

imported via Entry Nos. 655-1146249-5, 655-1151865-0 and 655-115-

2655-4, as well as notices of liquidated damages for failure to

comply with those redelivery demands; and the plaintiff having

prayed for and obtained expedited trial and decision of its complaint; and the court having issued an opinion and order, slip op.

03-54, 27 CIT , F.Supp.2d (May 15, 2003), denying

certain requested relief but finding that plaintiff's goods bearing

style numbers 65132, 65134, and 27-0180-3 are correctly classifiable under subheading 6109.10.0037 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (2002), textile category 352, based

upon a fair preponderance of the evidence developed on the record,

which thereby overcame the presumption of correctness on behalf of
Court No. 03-00068 Page 2

the U.S. Customs Service; and the court having ordered the parties

to confer and present a proposed form of final judgment in

accordance with slip op. 03-54; and counsel having complied with

that direction; Now therefore, in accordance with slip op. 03-54,

and after due deliberation, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Customs notices of

redelivery (and for liquidated damages in connection therewith) in

Entry Nos. 655-1146249-5, 655-1151865-0, and 655-1152655-4 each be,

and they hereby are, vacated; and it is further hereby

ORDERED that the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection reliquidate the merchandise of Entry No. 655-1146249-5

under subheading 6109.10.0037 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (2002) at a rate of duty of 17.4 percent ad

valorem and recover from the plaintiff any additional duties owed

plus interest as provided by law.

Dated: New York, New York

 June 9, 2003 

________________________________ Judge
**EXHIBIT 10.13**

 

**CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

January 23, 2020

 

| **PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: USD$400,000** |   | **DUE: July 20, 2020** |
|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------------|

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Allied Corp. (the "**Borrower**" or the “**Company**”), company incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada, hereby promises to pay PARKWARD HOLDING LTD. (the "**Lender**"), at such address or at such other place as the Lender may from time to time designate by written notice to the Borrower, the principal amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($400,000) DOLLARS, ON DEMAND at any time after 179 days from the date hereof (the "**Principal Amount**"), in lawful money of the United States of America, with simple interest at 10% per annum..

 

The Borrower may pre-pay the Principal Amount and any unpaid interest or any portion thereof at any time and from time to time without notice, further interest, bonus or penalty provided, however, that a minimum of six months interest shall be payable from the date hereof regardless of such repayment date.

 

At the option of Lender, this note is convertible at any time through that date which is 179 days from the date of issuance at a conversion price of $1.25 per share. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by both parties, at no time will the Lender convert any amount of this Note into common stock that would result in the Lender owning more than 9.9% of the common stock outstanding. 

 

At the option of the Lender upon closing of any equity based financing for the Company, Lender may require the Company to redeem this Note (to the extent available as net proceeds from any such financing) through repayment of any and all principal amount remaining due together with any accrued but unpaid interest, without further interest, bonus or penalty provided, however, that a minimum of six months interest shall be payable from the date hereof through such redemption date.

 

The Company hereby grants to Lender a security interest in the Company’s collateral pursuant to the terms of that certain Security Agreement of even date herewith, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto (the “Security Interest”).

 

PRESENTMENT for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonour and protest hereof are hereby waived.

 

THIS PROMISSORY NOTE is governed by and shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada and all federal laws of the United States of America applicable therein.

 

THIS PROMISSORY NOTE is not assignable by the Borrower without the prior written consent of the Lender.

 

| **ALLIED CORP.** |                                |
|------------------|--------------------------------|
|             |                           |   |
| By:              |                                |  |
|             | Name: Calum Hughes             |   |
|             | Title: Chief Executive Officer |   |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 28, 2016

No. 04-16-00380-CR

Richard Prieto,

Appellant-s

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee-s

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9942

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 19, 2016, the court reporter filed a Notification of Late Record stating, in 

part, that appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, and the appellant has failed to 

pay the fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing such record. Thereafter, we 

ordered appellant to file proof that payment had been made to the court reporter for preparation 

of the reporter’s record. On September 25, 2016, the court reporter filed a second Notification of 

Late Record stating that appellant had paid the fee for preparing the reporter’s record and 

requesting an additional 30 days in which to prepare and file the reporter’s record. Accordingly, 

it is ORDERED that the reporter’s record must be filed in this Court no later than October 25, 

2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In re: Randall J. DAVIS, Debtor. Estate of Randall J. Davis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Crumbley Backhoe Service, Ron Crumbley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16031

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 26, 2010.

Charles M. Ingram, Jr., Opelika, AL, for Debtor.

Russell Brown Robertson, Laird & Robertson, P.C., Jasper, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, the estate of Randall Jack Davis, appeals the district court’s affir-mance of the bankruptcy court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Despite the plain language of the statute and precedent from this circuit to the contrary, Appellant argues that a debtor may seek relief under 11 U.S.C. § 525(b) even when the discrimination alleged by the debtor took place before the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

> Section 525(b) provides, in relevant part: No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who *is or has been*a debtor under this title ... solely because such debtor or bankrupt ... *is or has been*a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act.

11 U.S.C. § 525(b) (emphasis added). In *In re Kanouse,*53 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir.1995), ce*rt. denied,*516 U.S. 930, 116 S.Ct. 336, 133 L.Ed.2d 235 (1995), we affirmed the district court’s holding that only one “who is or has been a debtor” is afforded protection under § 525(b), and that “[t]he statute does not allow a remedy to ‘will be’ debtors.” *In re Kanouse,*168 B.R. 441, 447 (S.D.Fla.1994). The district court in *Kanouse*held that because the plaintiff “was not a debtor nor had been a debtor at the time of the alleged acts of discrimination by [his employer], he is not entitled to relief under § 525(b).” *Id.*The Ninth Circuit agreed with the *Kanouse*analysis and reached the same conclusion in *In re Majewski,*310 F.3d 653, 656 (9th Cir.2002). The only cases that Appellant can cite that reach a contrary result are two bankruptcy court decisions: *In re Mayo,*322 B.R. 712 (Bankr.Vt.2005), and *In re Tinker,*99 B.R. 957 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1989). These decisions are clearly contrary to the court’s decision in *Kanouse*and therefore are not persuasive in this circuit.1

*844Like the debtor in *Kanouse,*it is undisputed that the debtor in this case was terminated from his employment *before*he filed for bankruptcy. Therefore, as in *Ka-nouse,*he was not entitled to relief under § 525(b).

AFFIRMED.

1

. In fact, the district court in *Kanouse*expressly questioned *Tinker,*stating that the *844court in *Tinker*relied "upon questionable legislative history.” *Kanouse,*168 B.R. at 447.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 963 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 963

    To require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
    Administration to submit a report on small business innovation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2015

 Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
    Administration to submit a report on small business innovation.

    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 ``Small Business Innovation Impact 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``small business 
concern'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
    (b) Small Business Administration Report.--Not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration shall, using existing resources, 
submit to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
Representatives a report analyzing--
            (1) the investment of small business concerns in developing 
        new and useful inventions and obtaining patents on those 
        inventions;
            (2) the importance of university technology transfer to 
        small business concerns;
            (3) the use of patent licensing arrangements by small 
        business concerns;
            (4) the impact of patent ownership for small business 
        concerns on attracting outside investment, creating new jobs, 
        protecting against foreign infringing goods, and competing 
        against larger businesses; and
            (5) the impact on small business concerns from patent-
        related demand letters and civil actions arising under title 
        35, United States Code, relating to patent infringement.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 22

- 00548

- CV

HOLLINGSWORTH

- PACK CORPORATION and Christopher A. Hewitt, P.E.,

Appellants

v.

Elroy RODRIGUEZ

, as Trustee of Peter R. Villarreal Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- CI10686

Honorable Nicole Garza , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 17, 2023

DIS MISSED

Appellants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal because the parties have

reached a settlement. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( a)(1).

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet, statements of operations and cash flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such form 10Q for the nine months
ended September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  468,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,454
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               468,923
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 468,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,701
<BONDS>                                        249,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     203,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   468,923
<SALES>                                         42,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,693
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,394
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
        

</TABLE>