alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.39


Bertucci’s
Corporation


Corporate
Pay for Performance Plan – Executive Officers


Our Pay for Performance
Plan (PFP Plan) is designed to motivate Corporate Team Members to participate
and support Operations in achieving and exceeding EBITDA targets.  In the PFP Plan, rewards increase with
improved EBITDA performance, and include a bonus option in the event the EBITDA
goal is not achieved at 100%.  The
following bonus percentages are based on a percentage of the employee’s base
salary.  The bonus is earned and
distributed on an annual basis.


	
  At Plan Performance

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EBITDA %

  	
   

  	
  Bonus % of Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  100.00%

  	
   

  	
  50.00

  	
  %

  



 


	
  Above Plan Performance

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EBITDA %

  	
   

  	
  Bonus % of Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  102.00%

  	
   

  	
  60.00

  	
  %

  
	
  104.00%

  	
   

  	
  70.00

  	
  %

  
	
  106.00%

  	
   

  	
  80.00

  	
  %

  
	
  108.00%

  	
   

  	
  90.00

  	
  %

  
	
  110.00%

  	
   

  	
  100.00

  	
  %

  



 


	
  Below Plan Performance

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EBITDA %

  	
   

  	
  Bonus % of Base Salary

  	
   

  
	
  97.50%

  	
   

  	
  37.50

  	
  %

  
	
  95.00%

  	
   

  	
  25.00

  	
  %

  
	
  94.00%

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
  %

  



 


Corporate Pay for Performance
Plan Eligibility and Terms


Eligibility


1.               Eligibility
commences the first day of employment for the Corporate Team Member, if hired
on or before September 30th.  If hired on or after October 1st you are not eligible due to the limited
impact, if any on EBITDA for the year. 
Such employees become eligible for the PFP plan on January 1st of the next year.


2.               To be eligible to
receive any bonus the Corporate Employee must be continuously employed by
Bertucci’s until and at the time the bonus payments are distributed by the
Company.  This PFP Plan is designed to
offer financial rewards for achieving certain objectives and to encourage
long-term employment with the Company.


Terms


1.               The Company’s
calculation and determination of any bonus shall be final and binding.  The Company in its sole judgment shall decide
all questions which may arise under the PFP Plan and shall interpret the
provisions of the Plan.  The Company’s
interpretation and decision on such questions shall be final and binding.


2.               This plan is only
applicable for the current fiscal year. 
The company reserves the right to alter this plan as it deems necessary
during the fiscal year.


3.               This PFP Plan does
not create a contract, implied or expressed, with employees of the
Company.  Employment is terminable at
will by the Company for any reason, with or without cause.


Payment of Bonus


The bonus will be
calculated based on Year End results.  If
any errors are discovered after the Year End payment, adjustments will be made
in a subsequent bonus payment.
#### Paul ABBOTT; Elaine Barker, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Daniel GUENTHER, Esquire, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-1405.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2011.

Decided: April 7, 2011.

Paul Abbott, Elaine Barker, Appellants Pro Se. Mark Patrick Johnson, Eccleston & Wolf PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*313PER CURIAM:

Paul Abbott and Elaine Barker appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Abbott v. Guenther,*No. 8:09-cv-02642-RWT (D.Md. Mar. 10, 2010). 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.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21982]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 882

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1608]

Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of Cranial 
Motion Measurement Device; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final order; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final 
order entitled ``Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification 
of Cranial Motion Measurement Device'' that appeared in the Federal 
Register of July 28, 2017. The final order was published with an 
incorrect statement in the preamble about whether FDA planned to exempt 
the device from premarket notification requirements. This document 
corrects that error.

DATES: Effective October 12, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Gupta, Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2611, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2795, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 28, 2017 (82 
FR 35069), FDA published the final order ``Medical Devices; 
Neurological Devices; Classification of Cranial Motion Measurement 
Device.'' The final order published with an incorrect statement in the 
preamble about whether FDA planned to exempt the device from premarket 
notification requirements under section 510(k) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)).

Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 28, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-15895, 
the following correction is made:

    On page 35070, after table 1 in the third column, the last 
paragraph is corrected to read as follows:
    ``Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a 
class II device from the premarket notification requirements under 
section 510(k), if FDA determines that premarket notification is not 
necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and 
effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has 
determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide 
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. 
Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket 
notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of 
device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to 
marketing the device, which contains information about the cranial 
motion measurement device they intend to market.''

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21982 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
```
August 07, 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702

- 7854

Re: Jose Albert Aguilar



### 12

- 15

- 00056

- CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding his right to file a PDR along

with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same.

Sincerely,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson ACCEPTED

12-15-00056-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/7/2015 10:26:59 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERKAugust 06, 2015

Jose Albert Aguilar

Inmate 01986725

Goree Unit

7405 Highway 75 South

Huntsville

, TX 77344

Re: Opinion

Mr. Aguilar :

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in your case. The Court

has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion

.

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know.

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3210 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3210

    To authorize appropriations for the rural housing and economic 
development program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2009

Mr. Hinojosa (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and Ms. Waters) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize appropriations for the rural housing and economic 
development program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    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 ``Rural Housing and Economic 
Development Improvement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Use.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may carry 
out a program, through the Office of Rural Housing and Economic 
Development, to provide assistance to Indian tribes, State housing 
finance agencies, State community or economic development agencies, 
local nonprofit organizations, and community development corporations 
in rural areas to support innovative housing and economic development 
activities in rural areas.
    (b) Requirement of Social Security Account Number for Assistance.--
As a condition of initial or continuing assistance under any housing or 
economic development activity that is provided assistance with amounts 
made available under this section, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development shall require that each member of a family so assisted (or 
of a family applying for such assistance) who is 18 years of age or 
older or is the spouse of the head of household of such family, shall 
have a valid social security number.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for 
assistance under this section--
            (1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
            (2) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 
        2014, and 2015.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Smith, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 404]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered May 17, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The circumstances of the showup identification were not unduly suggestive *(People v Espala,*223 AD2d 461, *lv denied*88 NY2d 847; *see also, People v Rodriguez,*64 NY2d 738).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility and reliability of identification testimony were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings *(People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94).

*17We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2022-2806

LT Case No. 2020-CF-001273

____________________________

RAMARIE ARCHIBALD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County.

Mary P. Hatcher, Judge.

Markus X. Murden, of MXM Law, Orlando, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. 

Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

August 20, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                          <C>
<CURRENCY>                    CANADIAN
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.50
<CASH>                        703,614
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 328,612
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   31,939
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,064,165
<PP&E>                        182,196
<DEPRECIATION>                (103,858)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,142,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         193,762
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      5,144,985
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,142,503
<SALES>                       195,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              195,135
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 821,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (625,909)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (625,909)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (625,909)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.06)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Derrick Faulkner, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 52]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Ser*936vices which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits organizing or encouraging others to participate in work stoppages or other disruptive activities. Presented in evidence at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing was the misbehavior report charging that petitioner had distributed a memorandum to the leaders of various inmate factions encouraging them to participate in a facility-wide strike. Also in evidence was the testimony of a correction officer who corroborated the information in the misbehavior report and stated that petitioner had admitted to him that he had distributed the memorandum around the prison yard. This was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966). Petitioner’s testimony to the contrary presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see, id.).*Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his allegations of procedural errors, have been examined and are either without merit or unpreserved for our review.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Innkeepers USA Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-37505), Form S-3 (File No.
333-01026), Form S-3 (FILE No. 333-31923), Form S-3 (File No. 333-20309) and
Form S-3 (File No. 333-97932) of our report dated February 20, 1998 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Innkeepers USA Trust as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995; our report dated March 23, 1998 on our audit of the financial statement
schedule of Innkeepers USA Trust as of December 31, 1997; and our report dated
March 23, 1998 on our audits of the combined financial statements of JF Hotel,
Inc., JF Hotel II, Inc. and JF Hotel III, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which reports are
included in, or incorporated by reference, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                                Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Memphis, Tennessee
March 27, 1998
#### Joy LaFond et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[666 NYS2d 7]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schnier, J.), dated December 6, 1996, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial *269summary judgment on the issue of liability, and dismissed the counterclaim against the plaintiff Joy LaFond.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for partial summary judgment is denied, and the counterclaim is reinstated.

On September 11, 1993, a sanitation truck operated by the defendant Hervin S. Gayle struck the rear end of the vehicle operated by plaintiff Joy LaFond. The LaFond vehicle had stopped suddenly because of a disabled and abandoned vehicle in the road. In a police accident report Gayle stated that he was unable to avoid the collision because the LaFond vehicle stopped suddenly on a blind curve.

Proof of a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of liability on the part of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty of explanation on the part of the driver of the moving vehicle (see, *Gladstone v Hachuel,*225 AD2d 730; *Barile v Lazzarini,*222 AD2d 635; *Leal v Wolff,*224 AD2d 392). However, under the particular circumstances of this case, there exist triable issues of fact concerning the reasonableness of Gayle’s conduct (see, *Barber v Young,*238 AD2d 822; *Varsi v Stoll,*161 AD2d 590; *Rios v Nicoletta,*119 AD2d 562; *Pescetti v Mastrodominico,*79 AD2d 970, *affd*54 NY2d 633). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Quick-Med Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nam H. Nguyen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











Dated:  February 16, 2010                                                                                                      /s/
Nam H. Nguyen


Nam H.
Nguyen


Chief Financial
Officer
**EXHIBIT
23**
 
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-101800 and 333-110398 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 25, 2005,
related to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of
MidAmerican Energy Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to MidAmerican Energy Company
changing its accounting policy for asset retirement obligations in 2003),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MidAmerican Energy Company for
the year ended December 31, 2004.
 
 
 /s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
 Des
Moines, Iowa
 February
25, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                        1,909,028
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 153,286
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   286,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,568,360
<PP&E>                        7,584,713
<DEPRECIATION>                2,623,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,961,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,422,168
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   1,355,505
<COMMON>                      145,413
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  8,109,199
<SALES>                       5,505,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              6,299,485
<CGS>                         3,110,421
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 6,412,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              107,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            46,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (220,579)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (220,579)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.02)
        


</TABLE>