alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.19 
  
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  
 Directors of Entravision Communications Corporation who are not officers or employees of the company are compensated for their services as
follows: (i) an annual grant of an option to purchase 30,000 shares of Class A common stock under our then-current incentive plan; (ii) $24,000 per year (which may be converted into an option to purchase additional shares of Class A common stock
under a specified formula); (iii) $1,250 for attendance at a Board meeting in person ($500 if telephonically); and (iv) $1,000 for attendance at a committee meeting in person ($500 if telephonically and an additional $250 if serving as the
chairperson of the committee). However, Board committees may waive the meeting fees to which they would otherwise be entitled, subject to the unanimous approval of all members of the relevant committee.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIndependent Orbiter Assessment (IOA): Analysis of the auxiliary power unitThe results of the Independent Orbiter Assessment (IOA) of the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Critical Items List (CIL) are presented. The IOA approach features a top-down analysis of the hardware to determine failure modes, criticality, and potential critical items. To preserve independence, this analysis was accomplished without reliance upon the results contained within the NASA FMEA/CIL documentation. This report documents the independent analysis results corresponding to the Orbiter Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). The APUs are required to provide power to the Orbiter hydraulics systems during ascent and entry flight phases for aerosurface actuation, main engine gimballing, landing gear extension, and other vital functions. For analysis purposes, the APU system was broken down into ten functional subsystems. Each level of hardware was evaluated and analyzed for possible failure modes and effects. Criticality was assigned based upon the severity of the effect for each failure mode. A preponderance of 1/1 criticality items were related to failures that allowed the hydrazine fuel to escape into the Orbiter aft compartment, creating a severe fire hazard, and failures that caused loss of the gas generator injector cooling system.Document ID19900001615Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBarnes, J. E.*(McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 12, 1986Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberREPT-1.0-WP-VA86001-14NAS 1.26:185568NASA-CR-185568Accession Number90N10931Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-17650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001615.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Volcom, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Richard R. Woolcott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Douglas P. Collier, as Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

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



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Richard R. Woolcott                           
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Richard R. Woolcott                               
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer              
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                     
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 10, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas P. Collier                            
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Douglas P. Collier                                
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Secretary and Treasurer                           
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                     

The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.
These certifications shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95CR3093/LAC/MD

CHARLES J. SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on January 2, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Filed byDefendant Pro Se on Doc.# 174

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Katherine V. Goodman

Deputy Clerk: Katherine V. Goodman

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 7th day of

January, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See order (doc 167) denying certificate of appealability. 

 s/L.A. Collier

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 178 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

**AMENDMENT TO**

**GUARANTY BANCORP EXECUTIVE CASH INCENTIVE PLAN**

 

Amendment,dated October 27, 2008 (the “Amendment”), to the Guaranty BancorpExecutive Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).

 

**WHEREAS**, Guaranty Bancorp (the “Company”) has adopted the Plan;

 

**WHEREAS**, in order to avoid certain adverse federal incometax consequences to holders of certain awards under the Plan as a result of Section 409Aof the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the Company desires toimplement certain amendments to the Plan; and

 

**WHEREAS**, the Plan authorizes the Company to amend or revisethe terms of the Plan.

 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.  The second sentence of the first paragraph ofthe section entitled “Payment of Awards” is amended in its entirety to read asfollows:

 

“AnyAward with respect to a Performance Period will be paid within the period thatis 21⁄2 months after the end of the calendar year in which the Performance Periodends.”

 

2.The second sentence of the second paragraph of the section entitled “Payment ofAwards” is amended by adding the following to the end thereof:

 

“andwill be paid at the same time as other Awards are paid under the Plan (asdescribed in the preceding paragraph)”

 

3.  A new section entitled “Code Section 409A”is added after the section entitled “Amendment or Termination of the Plan” toread as follows:

 

**CODE SECTION 409A.**

 

The Awards under this Planare generally intended to be exempt from Section 409A of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 (“Section 409A”) as short-term deferral.  However, notwithstanding the foregoing oranything to the contrary in this Plan or elsewhere, if a Participant is a “specifiedemployee” as determined pursuant to Section 409A as of the date of his orher “separation from service” (within the meaning of Treasury Regulation1.409A-1(h)) and if any Award provided for in this Plan or otherwise both (x) constitutesa “deferral of compensation” within the meaning of Section 409A and (y) cannotbe paid or provided in the manner otherwise provided without subjecting theParticipant to “additional tax”, interest or penalties under Section 409A,then any such payment that is payable during the first six months following theParticipant’s “separation from service” shall be paid in a lump sum to theParticipant on the first business day of the seventh calendar month followingthe month in which his or her “separation from 

 

----

 

service” occurs or, ifearlier, at his or her death.  In addition, any payment of an Award upon atermination of employment that represents a “deferral of compensation” withinthe meaning of Section 409A shall only be paid, delivered, settled orexercised upon a “separation from service”.

 

4.  Effectivenessof Amendment.  This Amendment shallbecome effective as of January 1, 2009.

 

5.  Definitions.Capitalized terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have themeanings ascribed thereto in the Plan.

 

6.  OtherProvisions Unaffected.  Except asmodified by this Amendment, the existing provisions of the Plan shall remain infull force and effect.

 

2

----
§ 2500.053 Expiring appropriations. ( a ) *OAO awards supported with office appropriations.* Most OAO awards are supported with annual appropriations. On September 30th of the 5th fiscal year after the period of availability for obligation ends, the funds for these appropriations accounts expire per 31 U.S.C. 1552 and the account is closed, unless otherwise specified by law. Funds that have not been drawn through the approved electronic funds transfer system, by the awardee or disbursed through any other system or method by August 31st of that fiscal year are subject to be returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury after that date. The August 31st requirement also applies to awards with a 90-day period concluding on a date after August 31st of that fifth year. Appropriations cannot be restored after expiration of the accounts. More specific instructions are provided in the OAO award terms and conditions.
( b ) *OAO awards supported with funds from other Federal agencies (reimbursable funds).* OAO may require that all draws and reimbursements for awards supported with reimbursable funds (from other Federal agencies) be completed prior to June 30th of the 5th fiscal year after the period of availability for obligation ends to allow for the proper billing, collection, and close-out of the associated interagency agreement before the appropriations expire. The June 30th requirement also applies to awards with a 90-day period concluding on a date after June 30th of that fifth year. Appropriations cannot be restored after expiration of the accounts. More specific instructions are provided in the terms and conditions of the OAO award agreement.
§ 205.309 Agricultural products in other than packaged form at the point of retail sale that are sold, labeled, or represented as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” ( a ) Agricultural products in other than packaged form containing between 70 and 95 percent organically produced ingredients may use the phrase, “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” to modify the name of the product in retail display, labeling, and display containers. ( 1 ) Such statement must not list more than three organic ingredients or food groups, and
( 2 ) In any such display of the product's ingredient statement, the organic ingredients are identified as “organic.”
( b ) If prepared in a certified facility, such agricultural products labeled as “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” in retail displays, display containers, and market information may display the certifying agent's seal, logo, or other identifying mark.
#### James F. McDonald, as Administrator of the Estate of Thomas McDonald, Deceased, Respondent, v. King’s Department Store, Inc., *Appellant.*

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint and for failure of prosecution and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion to require defendant to accept service of his complaint setting forth causes of action in negligence and for breach of warranty to recover damages for plaintiff’s intestate’s death and for his prior pain and suffering and medical and other expenses, caused by burns sustained by intestate when a shirt purchased at defendant’s store ignited. It was the opinion of the Special Term that the research problems and other difficulties encountered by plaintiff's attorneys offered reasonable excuse for the delay. Defendant’s claim of prejudice, on the other hand, depends on merely conelusory statements as to locating “key witnesses”, and can properly be given little weight. Under all the circumstances, we find no sufficient basis for disturbing the Special Term’s considered exercise of discretion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Limiteds Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Limited, each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Limited.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName: Roger M. BoissonneaultPresident & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Paul HerendeenName: Paul HerendeenChief Financial Officer
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 quarterly report of Midnight Candle Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Helen C. Cary, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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/ Helen C. Cary

Helen C. Cary

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 9, 2007
#### § 29.2515 Elasticity.

The flexible, springy nature of the tobacco leaf to recover approximately its original size and shape after it has been stretched. (See chart, § 29.2601.)
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302**I, Keith R. Schroeder, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  May 4, 2007 /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Keith R. Schroeder   Chief Financial Officer  
23
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00304

- CV
In the Interest of M.R. and X.R., children
On Appeal from the County Court at Law of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 18

- 7036

- FL

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with it s opinion

. Appelle e, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAM ILY AND PROTECTI VE SERVIC ES, is exempt from all costs. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 22 , 2022
#### In the Matter of Mortimer Policastro, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner made application for accidental disability retirement benefits on May 26, 1976, under section 63 of the Retirement and Social Security Law, for injuries sustained while at work on June 4, 1970. The record reveals that on that day petitioner and a coworker, both custodians in the employ of Suffolk County, were instructed to clean and wax the floor of a room in the County Police Department building. In the furtherance of that assignment, as the men were removing a desk from the room, petitioner’s companion allowed the desk to strike the door casing, thus abruptly halting petitioner’s forward movement and causing him to bend sharply at the waist, with resultant injury to his back. Following a hearing, the respondent denied the application upon the ground that the incident occurred while the petitioner was performing a specific act relating to his regular duties and did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. This appeal ensued. Section 63 (subd a, par 2) of the Retirement and Social Security Law provides, in relevant part, that accidental disability retirement benefits will be allowed where the established disability is the result of an accident. Subdivision b of section 74 of the Retirement and Social Security Law vests the Comptroller with exclusive authority to determine all applications for any form of retirement. It is well established that respondent’s exclusive authority to determine what constitutes an accident will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence *(Matter of Croshier v Levitt,*5 NY2d 259; *Matter of Clark v Levitt,*50 AD2d 695). The substantial evidence question is the sole issue presented. Upon the undisputed facts, the Comptroller could rationally determine that the occurrence or incident was not an accident for the reason that any disability clearly resulted from activity in the ordinary performance of the petitioner’s regular duties and from a recognized risk inherent in that activity and was not unexpected (see *Matter of Nicotera v Regan,*72 AD2d 863; *Matter of Basile v Levitt,*70 AD2d 999, mot for lv to app den 48 NY2d 606; *Matter of Selinger v Levitt,*65 AD2d 668; *Matter of Tremblay v Levitt,*65 AD2d 901; *Matter of Meyer v Levitt,*64 AD2d 743; *Matter of Déos v Levitt,*62 AD2d 1121). Accordingly, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Comptroller’s conclusion that petitioner’s disability resulted from physical activity in the ordinary performance of *746his duties. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Calificar para el EITC no es una cuestión de suert

(Sólo lea el reverso de esta tarjeta para saber si usted es ele
Pub. 4338 SP Cat. 38518B (6-2004)
#### § 29.3043 No-G-Nested.

A designation applied to a lot of Type 31 tobacco which is classified as nested.

[47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16757, 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]