alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-4.htm








Exhibit 10.4


 



AMENDMENT TO THE


BENIHANA INC.


2007 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN







This Amendment to the Benihana Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Amendment”) is made and adopted by Benihana Inc. (the “Company”), effective September 28, 2010.  Terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Plan.







WHEREAS, the Company has adopted the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), for the benefit of certain employees; and







WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) is permitted to amend the Plan in such respects as it shall deem advisable; and







WHEREAS, this Amendment was approved by the Board on September 28, 2010;







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Plan is hereby amended, effective September 28, 2010 by deleting in its entirety the existing Section 8(e) of the Plan and replacing it with the following new Section 8(e):








“(e)        Non-Transferability of Options.  During a Grantee’s lifetime, an Option may be exercisable only by the Grantee and an Option granted under the Plan and the rights and privileges conferred thereby shall not be subject to execution, attachment or similar process and may not be sold, pledged, assigned, hypothecated, transferred or otherwise disposed of in any manner (whether by operation of law or otherwise) other than by will or by the laws of descent and distribution.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent permitted by applicable law and Rule 16b-3, the Committee may determine that an Option may be transferred by a Grantee to any of the following:  (i) a family member of the Grantee; (ii) a trust established primarily for the benefit of the Grantee and/or a family member of said Grantee in which the Grantee and/or one or more of his or her family members collectively have a more than 50% beneficial interest; (iii) a foundation in which such persons collectively control the management of assets; (iv) any other legal entity which is controlled by the Grantee; or (v) any charitable organization exempt from income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (collectively, a “Transferee”); provided, however, in no event shall an ISO be transferable if such transferability would violate the applicable requirements under Section 422 of the Code.  Any other attempt to sell, pledge, assign, hypothecate, transfer or otherwise dispose of any Option under the Plan or of any right or privilege conferred thereby, contrary to the provisions of the Plan, or the sale or levy or any attachment or similar process upon the rights and privileges conferred hereby, shall be null and void.  An Option transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Plan shall be subject to all of the same terms and conditions of the Plan and the Option Agreement as if such Option had not been transferred.”




 


All other provisions of the Plan shall remain the same and in full force and effect.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6044

RAYMOND ANTHONY WINKLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-165-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Anthony Winkler, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Anthony Winkler, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Winkler has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Winkler’s motion for a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO LAMONT LIGHTFOOT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR99-409-PJM, CA-00-4357) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Lamont Lightfoot, Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Lamont Lightfoot seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lightfoot has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1837EA

_____________

Kevin S. Ellison, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Gary Sims, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: January 29, 1999

Filed: February 10, 1999

_____________

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

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin S. Ellison's appeal has been submitted on the briefs. Having considered

the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court correctly granted

summary judgment in favor of the party sued by Ellison. We thus affirm the district

court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ellison's pending motions.
2–

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-2, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         82,776
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,975
<PP&E>                                         1,410,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,203,301)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,888
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,803
<SALES>                                        124,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,175
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  41,518<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                55,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            55,364
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   55,364
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40941

Conference Calendar

 

BRUCE PETTY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; 

A. J. COLLINS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-707

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

August 25, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bruce Petty, Texas prisoner # 541160, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. 

Petty argues, as he did in the district court, that the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice’s policy of allowing female prison

guards to be present when male prisoners are showering and other

times when male prisoners are naked is cruel and unusual

punishment and violates his constitutional right to privacy.
No. 98-40941

-2-

The presence of female prison guards for security reasons on

those occasions when male prisoners are naked is not a

constitutional violation. See Letcher v. Turner, 968 F.2d 508,

510 (5th Cir. 1992). Petty’s claim lacked an arguable basis in

law, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing the complaint as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower,

112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2


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 Annual Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lei Wang, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.





BIRCH BRANCH, INC.





Date: March 31, 2011





By: /s/ Lei Wang


Lei Wang


Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual report of Discovery Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Friess, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Innovative Software Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Discovery Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

     Date:  September 28, 2007            By  /s/ Michael Friess
                                            ------------------------------------
                                              Michael Friess
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 15.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-190123, 333-171011, 333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546) of Luxottica Group S.p.A. of our report dated April 29, 2014, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Luxottica Group S.p.A, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers S.p.A.Milan, ItalyApril 29, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,261,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,484,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (613,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    558,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,548,000
<PP&E>                                      32,662,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,451,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,578,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,757,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,608,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,578,000
<SALES>                                     42,312,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,312,000
<CGS>                                       25,578,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,578,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,953,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             583,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,217,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,959,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,258,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 3 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk March 3 , 201 7

153723 (57)

JEFFREY HAKSLUOTO and

CAROL HAKSLUOTO,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

SC: 153723

v COA: 323987

Macomb CC: 2014

- 002556

- NH

MT. CLEMENS REGIONAL MEDICAL

CENTER, a/k/a McLAREN MACOMB

GENERAL RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES,

P.C. and ELI SHAPIRO, D.O.,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_____________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendants

- appel lees to extend the

time for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief submitted on February 24, 2017, is

accepted for filing.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1962** 

PERCY LEE CLAY; DIANE CLAY , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. C T CORPORATION SYSTEM, d/b/a Citimortgage, Inc.; CITIMORTGAGE, INC
. , Defendants

- Appell ees .

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 00925

- WO

- PTS )

Submitted : January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGO RY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Percy Lee Clay , Diane Clay , Appellants Pro Se. Joseph Samuel Dowdy , Pamela Wachter McAfee , Meghan E. B. Pridemore , NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Percy Lee Clay and Diane Clay appeal the district
court ’ s order granting summary judgment in favor of Cit i Mortgage, Inc., on their claims for breach of contract,

con version, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Clay v. C T Corporation , No. 1:08

- cv - 00925

- WO

- PTS (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11 , 2011) . We deny the Clays’ motions to recuse and 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
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

December 11, 2009

Mr. David W. Holman

The Holman Law Firm, P.C.

24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000

Houston, TX 77046

Mr. Richard N. Countiss

Countiss Law Firm

8441 Gulf Freeway,  Suite 600

Houston, TX 77017-5051

RE:Case Number:  07-1032

Court of Appeals Number:  01-05-00196-CV

Trial Court Number:  2000-56702

Style:METRO ALLIED INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. AND C. MICHAEL MCGLOTHLIN

v.

SHIHCHE E. LIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A APTUS COMPANY, AND SUNG-PING H. LIN

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued a per curiam opinion and enclosed judgment in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-1032Page 1**
#### Clayton CLEMONS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J.N. BRADLEY, Corporal, South Carolina Highway Patrol; Chris Scalzo, Public Defender’s Office; C.R. Garrett, Judge, Greenville County Sum*260mary Court; Paul B. Wickensimer, Greenville County Clerk of Court; Robert M. Ariail, Greenville County Solicitor; Barbara H. Tiffin, Assistant Solicitor; John L. Breeden, Jr., Judge, Circuit Court Judge; Joseph L. Savitz, Chief Attorney, Division of Appellate Defense; Kenneth A. Richstad, Clerk of South Carolina Court of Appeals; Harold Minch Coombs, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jasper Cureton, AJ South Carolina Court of Appeals; Kaye Gorenflo Hearn, CJ South Carolina Court of Appeals; Jean Hoefer Toal, CJ South Carolina Supreme Court, Defendants—Appellees, v. Henry McMaster, Attorney General, South Carolina, Third Party Defendant—Appellee.

No. 07-2148.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 23, 2008.

Clayton Clemons, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clayton Clemons seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion to extend time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying his motion to subpoena. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan*Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Clemons seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 amended  quarterly  report of LaSalle Brands  Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Scott  Campbell,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Scott Campbell
-------------------------------
Scott Campbell, President & CFO
October 11, 2007