alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
c47945_ex10-15.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





Exhibit 10.15 


DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT BONUS PLANS 


     Certain of the Company’s officers and key managers are included in a bonus plan (the “Bonus Plan”). For Company executives (other than Mr. Wildrick) at and above the senior vice
president level (the “Senior Participants”), bonus compensation is designed to reward Company-wide financial performance through tying the payment of bonuses primarily to the achievement by the Company of goals for net income after payment
of bonuses (“Net Income”). For all other Bonus Plan participants (the “Other Participants”), bonus compensation is also designed to reward the achievement of specific goals for departmental or individual performance. 


     Each Bonus Plan participant is notified by the Company of a dollar amount or the percentage of such participant’s base salary which he or she is eligible to earn as a bonus for any fiscal year.
For the fiscal year 2007, the percentages communicated to our Bonus Plan participants ranged from 10% to 65% of base salary. For Senior Participants, a range of Net Income results has been established (the “Bonus Eligibility Range”). Below
the low end of the Bonus Eligibility Range, bonuses are not expected to be paid to the Senior Participants. Within the Bonus Eligibility Range, the percentage of the maximum potential bonus expected to be paid to the Senior Participants increases as
Net Income increases. If Net Income is at or above the highest level of Net Income within the Bonus Eligibility Range, each Senior Participant is eligible to earn his maximum bonus potential. For Other Participants, a single Net Income goal has been
established. Below this level, bonuses are not expected to be paid to the Other Participants. Above this level and assuming the Other Participants satisfy their individual performance goals, bonuses are expected to be paid. The final determination
of all bonus payments to executive officers is made by the Compensation Committee. The final determination of all bonus payments to Other Participants is made by Mr. Wildrick.


     Mr. Wildrick does not participate in the Bonus Plan. The employment agreement between the Company and Mr. Wildrick entitles Mr. Wildrick to a bonus of up to 250% of his base salary upon achievement by
the Company of certain specified earnings per share goals. The goals were established in 2003 for each year of the current term of Mr. Wildrick’s employment agreement (fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2008).
#### Margaret N. White et al., Respondents, v James R. Humphrey, Jr., Respondent, and DiFiore Construction, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 74]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant DiFiore Construction, Inc. (DiFiore), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. DiFiore met its initial burden, establishing that the project was designed, controlled and supervised by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) *(see, Stevens v Bast Hatfield,*226 AD2d 981, 981-982; *Quinn v Nigro Bros.,*216 AD2d 281; *Loconti v Creede,*169 AD2d 900, 902). Plaintiffs, however, raised issues of fact whether DiFiore followed the specifications mandated by DOT and whether the specifications themselves provided sufficient safety devices for channeling traffic away from the drainage inlet holes. There is thus a further issue of fact whether the specifications were “ ‘so apparently defective that an ordinary builder of ordinary prudence would be put upon notice that the work was dangerous and likely to cause injury’ ” *(Pioli v Town of Kirkwood,*117 AD2d 954, 955, *lv denied*68 NY2d 601, quoting *Ryan v Feeney & Sheehan Bldg. Co.,*239 NY 43, 46, *rearg denied*239 NY 604; *see also, Loconti v Creede, supra,*at 903).

Finally, DiFiore failed to establish that plaintiffs’ expert was unqualified or that his affidavit was without probative force *(see, Matter ofFasano v State of New York,*113 AD2d 885, 889; *Felt v Olson,*74 AD2d 722, 722-723, *affd*51 NY2d 977; *see also, Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp.,*77 NY2d 525, 533, n 2). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          72,161                  72,161
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,431                  82,431
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                             18,976                  18,976
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             76,298                  76,298
<PP&E>                                           1,405                   1,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,536                 464,536
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                       4,813                   4,813
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              23,612                  23,612
<LONG-TERM>                                    115,815                 115,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           459                     459
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,201                 235,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,536                 464,536
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               30,862                 109,528
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                 0                       0
<COMMISSIONS>                                    8,777                  26,662
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,319                   4,515
<COMPENSATION>                                   7,743                  19,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,295                  23,376
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,171                  13,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17                     .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17                     .35


</TABLE>
#### FAST MEMORY ERASE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Numonyx B.V., Numonyx, Inc., Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA), Inc., and Apple Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Motorola, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1302.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 10, 2011.*

Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Shore Chan Bra-galone DePumpo, LLP, of Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Patrick J. Conroy and Theresa M. Dawson.

*992Aug. 10, 2011.

E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Orrick, Herring-ton & Sutcliffe, LLP, pf New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellees, Intel Corporation et al. With him on the brief were Chris R. Ottenweller, Craig R. Kaufman, Steven S. Baik and Stacy B. Margolies, of Menlo Park, CA; and Mark S. Davies, of Washington, DC.

Russell E. Levine, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Chicago, IL, for defendant-appel-lee, Motorola, Inc. With him on the brief was Nyika O. Strickland.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Circuit Judge Gajarsa did not participate in the vote.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Richard B. Rakow, Appellant, v Leinstone, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[666 NYS2d 516]

—In an action to recover a broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion of the defendants Leinstone, Inc., and Richard Stone for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and for an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated February 3, 1997, entered on the order, which awarded the defendants Leinstone, Inc., and Richard Stone $2,900 as an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which awarded the sum of $2,900 to the defendants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and by deleting therefrom the words “the sum of $3100.00” and substituting therefor the words “the sum of $200”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 *557NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the respondents demonstrated that he had not earned a broker’s commission as the “procuring cause” of the lease, and there was no evidence of any agreement to pay a commission *(see, Mollyann, Inc. v Demetriades,*206 AD2d 415; *Lanstar Intl. Realty v New York News,*206 AD2d 411; *Brown & Son Realty v Greenberg,*195 AD2d 583). However, we agree with the appellant that his action, albeit meritless, was not frivolous within the meaning of that term as defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 so as to warrant the award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to that section. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Grant, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 70]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to discharge for cause a pro*1054spective juror who was related to two members of a local law enforcement agency. We disagree. That prospective juror expressed in unequivocal terms her ability to render a fair and impartial verdict based upon the evidence presented at trial *(see, People v Blyden,*55 NY2d 73, 77-78).

The jury’s verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the court’s alibi charge *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bloom,*241 AD2d 975). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see, People v Bloom, supra).*(Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sheridan, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-168005) ofCurrencyShares® Canadian Dollar Trust of our reports dated January 14, 2011, with respect to the financialstatements of CurrencyShares® Canadian Dollar Trust, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of CurrencyShares® Canadian Dollar Trust, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended October 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

McLean, Virginia 

January 14, 2011
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 358 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 ALEMSEGHED MUSSIE TESFAMICAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 358 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alemseghed 

2 Mussie Tesfamical enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 

5 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 358 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Alemseghed Mussie 

2 Tesfamical shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
|   | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Independence Energy, Corp. for the year ended January 31, 2014 (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 Intervia Inc. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 1, 2014 |   |                                 |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                 |
|                          |   |                                 |
|                          |   | /s/ Howard J. Taylor                 |   |   |
|                          |   | Howard J. Taylor                     |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|                          |   | (Principal Executive Officer)   |
|                          |   | Independence Energy, Corp.           |

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49784-49785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

 Office of Civil Rights; Submission for OMB Review; Comment 
Request; Complaint of Employment Discrimination Against the Department 
of Commerce

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Office of the Secretary, Office of Civil Rights, Commerce.
    Title: Complaint of Employment Discrimination against the 
Department of Commerce.
    OMB Control Number: 0690-0015.
    Form Number(s): CD-498, 498-A.
    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved 
information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 700.
    Average Hours per Response: 350.
    Burden Hours: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.
    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a currently 
approved

[[Page 49785]]

information collection. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
regulations at 29 CFR 1614.106 require that a person alleging 
discriminatory treatment by a federal agency must submit a signed 
statement that is sufficiently precise to identify the general actions 
or practices that form the bases of the complaint. Although 
complainants are not required to use the proposed form to file their 
complaints, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) strongly encourages its 
use to ensure complete and accurate case processing and data 
collection.
    The DOC received no comments in response to the 60-day notice 
published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2017 (82 FR 17968).
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-23435 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P
```
Exhibit 23.2



                       Consent of Independent Accountants

          We  hereby   consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the
     Registration  Statement  on  Form  S-3  (No.333-26583,  declared  effective
     November 23, 1998) of Intervest Bancshares  Corporation of our report dated
     January 18, 2001 appearing in this Form 10-K.

     /s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
     -----------------------------------
     Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
     New York, New York
     March 1, 2001
NO. AP-77,045 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

* * * 

 

HARLEM HAROLD LEWIS III, 

Appellant

v.

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

* * * 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

*Death Penalty Case* 

__________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal in Cause No. 1428102 from the 

351ST District Court of Harris County, Texas 

___________________________________________________________ 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS: 

 NOW COMES, ROBERT MORROW, requesting to withdraw as 

counsel for Appellant HARLEM HAROLD LEWIS III and GERALD E. 

BOURQUE, requesting to substitute as counsel for Appellant, HARLEM 

AP-77,045

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/22/2015 3:37:41 PM

Accepted 4/22/2015 4:15:36 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2

HAROLD LEWIS III, and files this Motion for Withdraw and Substitution 

of Counsel. In support of this motion, Counsel respectfully shows the Court 

the following: 

I.

After a hearing, the trial court determined that a conflict had arisen 

between appointed counsel and Appellant. Attorney Gerald E. Bourque, 

State Bar No. 02716500, requests to substitute in as new appellate counsel. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully 

prays that the Court grant his motion as set out above. 

 Respectfully submitted: 

 /s/ Robert A. Morrow______ 

ROBERT A. MORROW 

State Bar No. 14542600 

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660 

The Woodlands, Texas 77380 

Telephone: 281-379-6901 

Fax: 832-813-0321 

 

 ________________________ 

 GERALD E. BOURQUE 

 State Bar No. 02716500 

 24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660 

 The Woodlands, TX 77380 

 Telephone: 281-379-6901 

 Fax: 832-813-0321 

 

/s/ Gerald E. Bourque
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As required, and in accordance with, the Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure, I certify that I have served this document on the following parties 

on April 22, 2015:

Harris County District Attorney's Office

Appellate Division

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

Ph. 713-755-5826

Fax: 713-755-5809

Harlem Lewis Harold Lewis III

TDCJ# 00999595

3872 FM 350 South

Livingston, Texas 77351

/s/ Robert A. Morrow______

ROBERT A. MORROW