alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11

 

AMENDMENT ONE TO THE

ARKANSAS BEST VOLUNTARY SAVINGS PLAN

 

As Amended and Restated Generally Effective January 1, 2008

 

WHEREAS, Arkansas Best Corporation (the “Company”) sponsors the Arkansas Best Corporation Voluntary Savings Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and last restated effective as of January 1, 2008; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to suspend the Company’s Matching Contributions effective January 1, 2010; and

 

WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Plan permits the executive officers of the Company to amend the Plan.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to its authority under Section 9, the Company hereby amends the Plan effective as of January 1, 2010 as follows:

 

1.  Section 4.3 is hereby restated to read as follows:

 

4.3          Matching Contributions.  Effective January 1, 2010 the Employer shall cease Matching Contributions. Prior to January 1, 2010, the Employer credited to a Participant’s Account fifteen cents ($.15) for every dollar for Match Qualified Deferrals that such Participant elected as his Compensation Deferral Contribution for the Plan Year, up to a maximum Matching Contribution of $15,000 per Plan Year.  Matching Contributions were credited as of each payroll period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ARKANSAS BEST CORPORATION has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officers on this          day of                     , 2010.

 

	
 
    	
ARKANSAS BEST CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Printed Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                      PETE'S BREWING COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY

                     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)

                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Year Ended December 31,
                                                                     ---------------------------

                                                                      1996      1995      1994
                                                                      ----      ----      ----
<S>                                                                  <C>        <C>       <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding for the period .......     10,682     8,157     3,611

Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of convertible
 Series A and Series B preferred stock ..........................         --        --     3,305

Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of stock options
  and warrants under the treasury stock method ..................        137       306       948
                                                                     -------    ------    ------

Shares used in per share calculation ............................     10,819     8,463     7,864
                                                                     =======    ======    ======

Net income ......................................................    $ 1,683    $1,538    $  551
                                                                     =======    ======    ======

Net income per share ............................................    $  0.16    $ 0.18    $ 0.07
                                                                     =======    ======    ======
</TABLE>


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

(1) There is no difference between primary and fully diluted net income per
share for all periods presented.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN FISHER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

SANDRA FISHER,

Plaintiff,

No. 04-16095 v.

D.C. No. CITY OF SAN JOSE,

CV-01-21192-PVT Defendant-Appellant,  Northern District

and of California,

CITY OF SAN JOSE POLICE San Jose

DEPARTMENT; OFFICER BOLER; ORDER

OFFICER BARNETT; OFFICER CORREA;

OFFICER ESQUIVEL; OFFICER HONDA;

OFFICER KINSWORTHY; OFFICER

O’BRIEN; OFFICER RYAN; OFFICER

NGUYEN,

Defendants. 

Filed March 14, 2008

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

2653
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson/West.
Exhibit 10.49

 

Vertex Employee Compensation Plan

 

On an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal year the Management Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopts an employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees, including our named executive officers, together with performance goals for that fiscal year. The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base salary, performance bonuses which serve as short-term incentives and equity grants which serve as long-term incentives—that are designed to motivate, reward and retain employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic corporate goals.

 

Upon completion of each performance period (usually a calendar year), our Board of Directors assigns a performance rating on the basis of achievement of goals for the company set by the Board, in consultation with our chief executive officer, early in the performance period. The amount available for payment of performance bonuses is established on the basis of this performance rating, and is allocated to employees on the basis of salary tier and individual performance rating. The base salaries of the executive officers are set based on market and other competitive factors. Merit increases to base salaries for other employees are made on the basis of individual performance rating. Annual equity grants, made in the form of stock options, restricted stock grants, or a combination of both are made on the basis of salary tier and individual performance.

 

The Board of Directors retains broad discretion to determine the appropriate form and level of compensation, particularly for our executives, on the basis of its assessment of our executives, the demand for talent, our performance and other factors. Key corporate performance factors generally include, among other things, achievement of regulatory and commercialization goals, research and development productivity, enhancements of organizational capabilities, maintenance of financial stability and other aspects of our performance. We reserve the right to modify the plan, and the key corporate performance factors and criteria under the plan, at any time.

 

On February 3, 2011, the Board of Directors determined the cash bonus awards related to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 and annual salaries effective February 2011. The cash bonus awards for 2010 and annual salaries for 2011 for the following executive officers were:

 

	
Name
    	
 
    	
2010 Cash Bonus
    	
 
    	
2011 Salary
    	
 
    
	
Matthew W. Emmens
    	
 
    	
$
    	
2,931,638
    	
 
    	
$
    	
1,166,990
    	
 
    
	
Peter Mueller
    	
 
    	
$
    	
509,850
    	
 
    	
$
    	
583,495
    	
 
    
	
Ian F. Smith
    	
 
    	
$
    	
459,000
    	
 
    	
$
    	
525,300
    	
 
    
	
Nancy J. Wysenski
    	
 
    	
$
    	
426,300
    	
 
    	
$
    	
504,700
    	
 
    
	
Kenneth S. Boger
    	
 
    	
$
    	
342,563
    	
 
    	
$
    	
463,500
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED J A SHUA DA NIEL , P etitioner ,
v. Case No. 5D 17

- 2006 S TA TE OF FLORIDA , R espondent

. ________________________________/ O pinion filed August 4, 2017 Petition for Belated Appeal A Case of Original Jurisdiction. J a s hua Daniel , Jasper, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Marjori e Vincent

- Tripp , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

P ER CURIAM. T he petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the July 2 9, 2016 , judgment and sentence in C ase No . 2015

- CF

- 8265 -B, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)( 6 )(D).

P ETITION GRANTED

.
SA WAYA, PALMER and LAMBERT , JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION
                        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 GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending February 26, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jaymin B. Patel, Senior Vice President and Chief 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Jaymin B. Patel
Date:  April 27, 2005               ------------------------------------------
                                       Jaymin B. Patel
                                       Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
                                       Officer
The United States Capitol is one

of the most familiar sights in the

world. The image of this stately

building and its unforgettable dome is carried

around the globe in countless television programs, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, books, and souvenirs. Each year millions of people come to see the Capitol in person and to observe American democracy in its

day-to-day operation. The doors to the Capitol

are open to all who wish to enter—no fee

charged, no introduction necessary.

In contrast to the familiarity of the building

itself, the Capitol’s history may appear murky.

Begun as an ideal in the minds of President

George Washington and Secretary of State

Thomas Jefferson, the Capitol has evolved for

over two centuries along a seemingly meandering path littered with design changes, funding

shortages, labor problems, fires, and an invading army bent on destroying the building. In

fact, however, its destiny has been directed—

and redirected—by successive generations of

political leaders, architects, engineers, artists,

and craftsmen who have contributed their

share to the development of this remarkable

structure.

Like the diverse country it serves, the

Capitol can mean different things to different

people. To some it is the object of political

ambition; to others it is a museum of art and

history; and to others it is a symbol of self-government and liberty. Most basically, however,

the Capitol is home to the American Congress,

the first of our three branches of government.

It houses the chambers in which the House of

Representatives and the Senate meet to debate

the laws that govern the nation and affect the

world’s condition. There are hundreds of other

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

CAPITOL

A chronicle of design, 

construction, and politics

William C. Allen
rooms, some noble and grand, others humble

yet indispensable to the operations of

Congress. Each has a unique history that illustrates a chapter in the Capitol’s ongoing evolution. The appearance of History of the United

States Capitol: A Chronicle of Design,

Construction, and Politics will be welcomed

by those wishing a full account of the architecture and history of this well-known landmark.

William C. Allen has been the architectural

historian in the office of the Architect of the

Capitol since 1982. In addition to writing about

the history of the Capitol, Allen supports

preservation and restoration projects undertaken by the Architect’s office. Formerly, he

was with the Department of Archives and

History in Jackson, Mississippi, where he

served as the state’s chief architectural historian. Allen holds an undergraduate degree from

the University of Delaware and a graduate

degree from the University of Virginia, where

he studied under the late Frederick Doveton

Nichols.

Main cover illustration:

United States Capitol, Washington, D. C.

Lithograph by Charles Hart, 1866

Back cover illustration:

Principal Front of the Capitol, Washington

Engraving after William H. Bartlett, ca. 1837
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-22-00051-CR

JASON CHAMBERS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-0253-X

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record in this matter indicates that 

they contain un-redacted “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a birth date, 

a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was 

committed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(3). The clerk’s record includes the name of a person who 

was a minor at the time the offense was committed. Likewise, the entirety of the reporter’s 

record, the supplemental reporter’s record, State’s exhibits nine through fourteen, and the 

Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) interview include the name of a person who was a minor at 

the time the offense was committed. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an 

electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not 

contain sensitive data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in 

paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because 

the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, the supplemental reporter’s record, State’s exhibits nine 

through fourteen, and the CAC interview contain un-redacted sensitive data, we order the clerk 

of this Court, or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal the electronically filed 

clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, the supplemental reporter’s record, State’s exhibits nine 

through fourteen, and the CAC interview in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: October 26, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001015610
<NAME> GOLD BANC CORPORATION, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          64,321
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,837
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                18,189
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 4,043
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    476,472
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,602
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,867
<LOANS>                                      1,943,671
<ALLOWANCE>                                     26,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,655,800
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,012,525
<SHORT-TERM>                                   110,342
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,471
<LONG-TERM>                                    329,517
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,286
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,655,800
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                130,484
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               21,556
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,225
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               154,265
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              64,883
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,558
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           70,707
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,653
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (1,933)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 74,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,101
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,101
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,207
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.52
<LOANS-NON>                                     20,057
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,791
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                25,998
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,305
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,821
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               26,167
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            26,167
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,348,148                 325,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0                 974,817
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,965                   5,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   2,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,449,607               1,541,706
<PP&E>                                       2,073,486               1,876,026
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,475,039)             (1,106,462)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,225,231               2,347,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          850,022                 691,686
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  7,600,226               2,667,403
<COMMON>                                    26,657,399              22,882,241
<OTHER-SE>                                (32,987,964)            (24,083,511)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,225,231               2,347,887
<SALES>                                         67,096                  76,917
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,824                 722,958
<CGS>                                            4,158                  26,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,158                  61,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,864,819               5,115,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,692                   7,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,638,203)             (4,453,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,638,203)             (4,453,933)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,638,203)             (4,453,933)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.88)                   (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.88)                   (.52)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2438 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2438

 To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 7, 2011

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

    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 ``American Traveller Dignity Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

    No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any 
immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity 
that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical 
contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is 
wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or 
views a representation of any part of an individual's body covered by 
clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to 
fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the 
individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other 
individual gives consent.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Smith v. Leary

September 1, 1982

Case No. (Law) 57455

By JUDGE QUINLAN H. HANCOCK

The Plaintiff relies upon the alleged act of malpractice as being either negligent performance of the sterilization procedure, or the hysterosalpingogram and/or negligent medical advice given to the Plaintiff regarding the results of the test or a combination of these factors.

The Defendant allegedly performed a sterilization operation on the Plaintiff on March 28th, 1978. She thereafter became pregnant and had an abortion on June 7, 1979, and the Defendant advised the Plaintiff of her test results either on July 27, 1979, or in early August, 1979. The Plaintiff had a pregnancy test on December 29, 1979, and another abortion on January 4, 1980.

The case of *Hawks*v. *DeHart,*206 Va. 810, 146 S.E.2d 187 (1966), holds that the statute of limitations on a personal injury claim begins to run when the wrong is committed and not when the Plaintiff discovers the injury.

The case of *Locke*v. *Johns-Manville Corp.,*221 Va. 951, 275 S.E.2d 900 (1981), holds that the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions is deemed to accrue and the period begins to run from the date the injury is sustained.

The hurt, the harm, the injury (if any) to the Plaintiff had to occur on December 29, 1979 (the date of the pregnancy test) and/or on January 4, 1980 (the date of the abortion). The Court concludes that the accrual point *28is when damage occurred to the Plaintiff and therefor overrules the Plea in Bar.