alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Schedule to Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.9 
  
 Schedule to Stock Option Agreement Under Huttig Building Products, Inc. 
 2001 Stock Incentive Plan 
  


								
	Option Holder	 	Number Of Shares	 	Exercise Price	 	Date of Grant
	Michael A. Lupo	 	400,000	 	$	2.300 per share	 	April 28, 2003
	Carl A. Liliequist	 	100,000	 	$	2.980 per share	 	August 5, 2003
	Thomas S. McHugh	 	  40,000	 	$	5.875 per share	 	January 29, 2002
	Thomas S. McHugh	 	  10,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
	Hank J. Krey	 	  25,000	 	$	2.980 per share	 	August 5, 2003
	Hank J. Krey	 	    5,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
	Richard A. Baltz	 	  10,000	 	$	2.980 per share	 	August 5, 2003
	Richard A. Baltz	 	    5,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
	Darlene Schroeder	 	    7,500	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Performanceevaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana hurricane protectionsystem: draft final report of the Interagency Performance Evaluation TaskForce.**** 
SuDocNumber:D103.2:H 94/V.1-9/FINAL DRAFT
ItemNumber:0337(online)
CGPsystem Number:000609901
 
Full Publication
 
Parts:
 - Vol     I ExecutiveSummaryandOverview.pdfVol     II GeodeticVerticalandWaterLevelDatums-maintext.pdfVol     III The Hurricane Protection System - appendices.pdfVol     III The Hurricane Protection System - maintext.pdfVol     IV The Storm - appendices.pdfVol     IV The Storm - maintext.pdfVol     V The Performance Levees and Floodwalls - appendices.pdfVol     V The Performance Levees and Floodwalls - maintext.pdfVol     VI The Performance Interior Drainage and Pumping - appendices.pdfVol     VI The Performance Interior Drainage and Pumping - maintext.pdfVol     VII The Consequences - appendices.pdfVol     VII The Consequences - maintext.pdfVol     VIII Engineering and Operational Risk and Reliability Analysis -     appendices.pdfVol     VIII Engineering and Operational Risk and Reliability Analysis -     maintext.pdfVol     IX General Appendices.pdf
 
 
 **
#### § 29.2275 Group.

A division of a type covering closely related grades based on certain characteristics which are usually related to stalk position, body, or the general quality of the tobacco. Groups in this type are Wrappers (A), Heavy Leaf (B), Thin Leaf (C), Lugs (X), Nondescript (N), and Scrap (S).
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ruths Chris Steak
House, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 25, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Pennison, Jr., Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 9, 2006



/s/ Thomas J. Pennison, Jr.Thomas J. Pennison, Jr.Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. and will be retained by
Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



29
98-1539.

#### Russell v. Mitchell.

In Habeas Corpus. Reported at 83 Ohio St.3d 1410, 698 N.E.2d 435. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v William Bess, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 3, 1979, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was denied a speedy trial. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, and indictment reinstated. Although approximately 14 months elapsed from the time of the felony complaint (Jan. 16, 1978) until the time of the instant motion (March 28, 1979), our review of the record shows that there has been no violation of defendant’s right to a speedy trial. CPL 30.30 requires that the prosecution be ready for trial within six months of the filing of the accusatory instrument. However, the six-month time period must be computed in light of CPL 30.30 (subd 4), which excludes certain periods from the time which is chargeable to the People. Most of the 14-month delay resulted from adjournments which were consented to or requested by the defendant and thus that delay was not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30, subd 4, par [b]). Another source of the delay excludable from the six-month limitation is attributable to defendant’s pretrial motions (see CPL 30.30, subd 4, par [a]). We thus conclude that the total time period chargeable to the prosecution was well within the statutory limit of CPL 30.30 and the dismissal of the indictment on the ground of denial of a speedy trial was improper. Finally, we have considered defendant’s contention that the dismissal was really in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40, even though it was stated to be pursuant to CPL 30.30. If 210.40 was the basis for dismissal, the dismissal order lacked the predicate of proper notice under CPL 210.45. The order to show cause referred solely to CPL 30.30 and the supporting aflirmation dealt solely with the speedy trial issue. If dismissal was to be based on CPL 210.40 considerations, the People were entitled to due notice of the basis for such a motion and a proper opportunity to resist it. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONICA SUSANA CHAVEZ , et al.

,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70438

Agency Nos. A202

- 122

- 289

A202

- 122

- 290

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022 * *

Before: M c KEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Monica Susana Chavez and her minor son, natives and citizens of El

Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum, and denyin g Chavez’s application for withholding of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70438

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238 , 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or will be on account

of a protected ground. See INS v. Elia s

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) ( an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see

also Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire

to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, the asylum and

withholding of removal claim s fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Chavez failed to show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.1 Purpose.

This subpart delegates authority and prescribes procedures for the liquidation of loans to individuals and to organizations as identified in § 1955.3 of this subpart. It pertains to the Multi-Family Housing (MFH) and Community Facility (CF) programs of the Rural Housing Service (RHS), and direct programs of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS). Guaranteed RBS loans are liquidated upon direction from the Deputy Administrator, Business Programs, RBS. This subpart does not apply to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs, to RHS single family housing loans, or to CF loans sold without insurance in the private sector. These CF loans will be serviced in the private sector, and future revisions to this subpart no longer apply to such loans. This subpart does not apply to the Rural Rental Housing, Rural Cooperative Housing, or Farm Labor Housing Programs of RHS. In addition, this subpart does not apply to Water and Waste Programs of the Rural Utilities Service, Watershed loans, and Resource Conservation and Development loans, which are serviced under part 1782 of this title.

[72 FR 55019, Sept. 28, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 64123, Nov. 15, 2007]
<PAGE>   1
                             ASA INTERNATIONAL LTD.
                           STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF
                           NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year ended December 31,
                                          1996            1995          1994
                                       -----------     -----------   -----------
<S>                                    <C>             <C>           <C>
Weighted Average Number of
  Shares Outstanding:

Common Stock                             3,934,893(c)    3,787,497     3,787,469

Common equivalent shares resulting
  from stock options
  (Treasury Stock Method)                      (a)         112,432           (b)

Shares contingently issuable
  based on market price                        (a)         324,574       391,829
                                       -----------     -----------   -----------

                                         3,934,893       4,224,503     4,179,298
                                       ===========     ===========   ===========


Net earnings (Loss)                    $      (649)    $       457   $       166
                                       ===========     ===========   ===========

Earnings (loss) per common and
  common equivalent share:

Net Earnings (Loss)                    $      (.17)    $       .11   $       .04
</TABLE>

(a)   Effect is antidilutive.

(b)   Dilution is less than 3%; therefore, earnings per share is based on
      weighted average number of shares outstanding and shares contingently
      issuable based on market price.

(c)   In the year ended December 31, 1996, Common Stock includes 104,122 shares
      previously treated as contingent to be issued in fiscal 1997 based on a
      December 31, 1996 market price.
Exhibit32.1

BERNARD CHAUS, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theAnnual Report of Bernard Chaus, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

|              |                                                                                                                     |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|              |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

September  19,2005

|  | /s/ JosephineChaus Josephine Chaus Chairwoman of the Board andChief Executive Officer |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 4.31.1


 


PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 


This
Promissory Note Extension Agreement,
hereinafter referred to as "Extension", entered
into this Twenty Ninth day
of August, 2012, by and among Globalwise Investments, hereinafter
called "Maker'' and
Roy Haddix, hereinafter
called
"Lender".


 


WHEREAS, Maker
and Lender have entered
into a Promissory Note
and Subscription


Agreement dated
July 20, 2012 for
the amount of TWENTY
FIVE THOUSAND 00/100


DOLLARS ($25,000),
herein after referred to
as "Note".Said
Note was originally due
forty five days from its
issuance.


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Lender desire
to enter into this Extension Agreement
in order to extend
the due date of the
Note.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE,
it is dually agreed
by both Maker and Lender to
extend the due date
of the Note from forty
five days to a due
date of November 16, 2012.


 


All
other provisions of the original Promissory
Note and Subscription agreement shall prevail unless otherwise
written.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Maker
and Lender has duly
executed this Note
as of the day and year
above ·first written.


 


	 	GLOBALWISE INVESTMENTS
    
	 	 
	 	By: /s/William J. Santiago
	 	 
	 	Roy Haddix
	 	 
	 	BY: /s/Roy Haddix
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos.: 3:97cr111/LAC/CJK

3:18cv1489/LAC/CJK

CHARLES JUSTE

______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 27, 2018 (doc. 414). Defendant has been furnished a

copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United StatesCode, Section 636(b)(1). No objections

have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.
Page 2 of 2

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No.

412) is SUMMARILY DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a

successive motion absent authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31 day of July, 2018.

st

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Nos: 3:97cr111/LAC/CJK; 3:18cv1489/LAC/CJK
Case 3:20-cv-02653-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 12

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Florida

KENNETH EDMONDS

Plaintiffis) :
v.

Civil Action No. 3:20cv2653-MCR/GRJ

3M COMPANY, et al.

Defendant(s)
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address) Aearo Holding, LLC
c/o Corporation Service Company
2345 Rice Street, Suite 230
Roseville MN 55113-3769

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) —- you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: Michael W. Gaines, Esq.

Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
Goodlettsville, Tennessee 37072
Phone #: (615) 859-1996

Tf you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS,
CLERK OF COURT

}

/s/ Donna Bay:

Date: 2/7/2020. 7
" Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk



Case 3:20-cv-02653-MCR-GRJ Document 3 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6 of 12

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ()))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on fdate}

(G1 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

© [left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
. a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

yx served the summons on (name of individual) Karo Hal ding g LLC Ve Corkbed (LS. . who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name ates degro Unldi ny (

on (date) Felomany 2030 or

1 I returned the summons unexecuted because or

OF Other (specifi):

My fees are S for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: 3| \o leone

Restricted Delivery? Service Type

CERTIFIED — pwden, Esq.

(Extra Fee) [_] Yes
lame and title

Article Number
9414 7118 8956 1223 9098 51

TT

18 9956 1223 9098 51

Patente®

"6 30:7 Be
a
a

- Goodlettsville, TN 37072

by and/or for use with US.

ived By: (Please Print Clearly)

Cor igs sem “| Article Addressed Ter
Aearo Holdings, LLC

I

I

clo Corporation Service Compan |

__. 2345 Rice Street, Suite 230° |
Si Roseville MN 55113-3769 |
|

|

©. Date of Delivery

SER comes

“Secon ROT Baa Pt
Secondary Address 7 Suto /Apt Floor” @Bleaae Print Glee)

USA/C.
rail

bos
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 78

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. E-13-692

TNT CABLE CONTRACTORS, INC.

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF

WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND

CHRIS SINGLETON

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered FEBRUARY 11, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

BOARD OF REVIEW 

[NO. 2013-BR-01144]

REBRIEFING ORDERED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Appellant TNT Cable Contractors, Inc. (TNT), appeals the Board of Review’s

decision to award unemployment benefits to appellee Chris Singleton. On appeal, TNT

contends that Singleton was an independent contractor rather than an employee, and therefore

not eligible for unemployment benefits; that Singleton committed misconduct associated with

his work; and that Singleton refused to accept alternative suitable jobs rather than be

discharged. For the reasons discussed below, this case must be remanded for rebriefing.

TNT’s abstract of Singleton’s testimony consisted of six sentences:

My name is Chris Singleton. I performed work for TNT. I took my Form 1099s and

receipts or my business expenses to my tax preparer. I used my personal vehicle to

perform work for TNT. TNT did not reimburse me for expenses associated with that

vehicle. I could no longer perform services for Suddenlink in Oklahoma because I

made an unprofessional joke to a dispatcher.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 78

In contrast, the record reflects that Singleton’s testimony spanned thirty-five pages and, in

some instances, it was diametrically opposed to testimony from TNT’s president, Tony

Hagedorn. 

Rule 4-2(a)(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State

of Arkansas provides:

The appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts

(stenographically reported material) in the record. Information in a transcript is

material if the information is essential for the appellate courts to confirm its

jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. 

Singleton’s testimony was clearly persuasive to the Appeal Tribunal and to the Board of

Review, which adopted part of the Appeal Tribunal’s opinion as its own. Therefore, the

entirety of Singleton’s testimony, not just the testimony that tends to support TNT’s

argument, is material to the understanding of this case and to decide the issues on appeal. See

Trucks For You, Inc. v. Director, 2014 Ark. App. 622, 447 S.W.3d 148. We remand for

rebriefing. TNT’s substituted abstract, addendum, and brief shall be due no more than fifteen

days from the date of this opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).

Rebriefing ordered.

ABRAMSON and HARRISON, JJ., agree.

K & L Gates LLP, by: John M. Farrell; and

Kutak Rock LLP, by: James M. Gary, for appellant.

Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.

2
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended October 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such amended Annual Report fairly presents in all material respect the financial condition and results of operations of Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.



|                         |  |        |                                                  | 
|------------------------ |  | ------ | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|                         |  |        |                                                  | 
|Date:  February 15, 2008 |  | By:    | /s/ James R. Musick                              | 
|                         |  | Name:  | James R. Musick                                  | 
|                         |  | Title: | President, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and | 
|                         |  |        | Principal Financial Officer                      | 
|                         |  |        | Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.                          |