alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups





EXHIBIT 10.26

Summary of Non-employee Director Compensation

Kurt W. Briner and Paul F. Jacobson each receive $40,000 as compensation for their services as Co-Chairmen of the Board.  In addition, on January 10, 2005, the Board of Directors granted to each of Messrs. Briner and Jacobson an option to purchase 25,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $15.98 per share, 10,000 shares of which vest immediately, with the remaining shares to vest on December 31, 2005.

In addition to the above retainer fees and option grants, Messrs. Briner and Jacobson receive compensation for their services as non-employee directors of Progenics.  Our non-employee directors are entitled to payment for their services as follows: 

		
•	
$2,000 for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended in person, $1,000 for each in-person meeting attended by telephone and $500 for participation in each telephonic meeting; 


		 	 	 	 
		
 	
 	
o	
for committee meetings held other than in conjunction with a meeting of the whole Board, $1,000 for attendance in person and $500 for telephonic participation; 


		 	 	 	 
		
 	
 	
o	
for committee meetings held on the day after a meeting of the whole Board, $500 for participation; 


		 	 	 	 
		
 	
 	
o	
for committee meetings held on the same day, no additional compensation is paid; 


		 	 
		
•	
an annual retainer fee of $15,000, except for Messrs. Briner and Jacobson who are entitled to an annual retainer fee of $40,000 as described above; and 


		 	 
		
•	
an option to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock granted annually on each July 1 with an exercise price equal to the fair market value as of the date of grant, provided that with regard to the option grant on July 1, 2005, Messrs. Briner and Jacobson will not be entitled to that option grant.


In addition, the Audit Committee chairman is entitled to an additional annual retainer fee of $5,000, the Compensation Committee chairman is entitled to an additional annual retainer fee of $2,500, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee chairman is entitled to an additional annual retainer fee of $2,500.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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 Fitmedia Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to 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.

|Dated: September 14, 2007 | /s/ Timothy Crottey                                       
|------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                          | Timothy Crottey                                           
|                          | President, Chief Executive Officer,                       
|                          | Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting
      Office

---
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANCISCO JOSE BACA,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO 3:20cv5357-MCR-HTC

SECRETARY FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated August 13, 2020, ECF No. 20, which recommends denying 

the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16. Petitioner filed “Objections” by 

mailbox rule1 on August 19, 2020, ECF No. 22, in which he stated that he concurred 

with the Report and Recommendation. The time for Respondent to file objections 

has passed without objection.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that 

the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

1 See Habeas Rule 3(d) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (Under the “prison 

mailbox rule,” a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison 

authorities for mailing.). 

Case 3:20-cv-05357-MCR-HTC Document 23 Filed 08/28/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5357-MCR-HTC

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1)The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 20, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

(2)The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF Doc. 16, is DENIED.

(3)The Clerk is directed to refer this matter back to the magistrate judge for 

further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of August 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05357-MCR-HTC Document 23 Filed 08/28/20 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                                          Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<S>                                             <C>                                   <C>
NAME                                             JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION         PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP

Billion Luck Company Ltd.                        British Virgin Islands                100%

Hainan Cihui Industrial Company Ltd.             People's Republic of China            100% (5% held by the
                                                                                       Registrant and 95% held
                                                                                       by Billion Luck)

Hainan Zhongwei Trading Company Ltd.             People's Republic of China            100% (95% held by
                                                                                       HARC and 5% held by
                                                                                       Billion Luck)

Zhuhai Zhongwei Development Co. Ltd.             People's Republic of China            100% (held by HARC)

Silver Moon Technologies Limited                 British Virgin Islands                80%

Zhongwei Medi-China.com Limited                  Hong Kong Special Administrative      100% (held by Silver Moon)
                                                 Region
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DEAN CURTIS SAWYER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00125-RBS-TEM-5; 2:09-cv-00634-RBS)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dean Curtis Sawyer seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 

successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and 

dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Sawyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Sawyer’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 
3

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously 

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Sawyer’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

H AlEY B"RBOl' R 

COVElL'lOR 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

TRUOY D. FISHER. Ex~ClfliVE DtRECI OR 

December 6, 2011 

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta. Georgia 30303-3 104 

Re: 	 Chcmfax, Inc. Site 


Harrison County, Mississippi 


Dear Ms. Fleming: 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is in receipt of 

EPA's lener of October 19, 2011. regarding the placement ofthc Chemfax, Inc., site (the 

Site) located in Harrison County, Mississippi, on the national Priorities List (NPL). After 

review of the Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) in 1993 and the Remedial Investigation (RI) 

in 1996 conducted by EPA, MDEQ concurs that the HRS score qualifies the site to be 

placed on the NPL. Additionally, the State concurs with the recently proposed amended 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the site whi ch changes the previously selected 

ground water remedy for the site. 

TDF:jar 

POST OFFICE Box 2261 • jACKSON, M\SS\SS\1'1'1 39225-2261 • T t·l: (60 I) 961 -SOOO • FAX: (60 I) 961-5794 • www.dcq.statc.ms.us 

AN EQUAL 0Pl'OR'l UNI ry EM PI OYH \
M. P. No. 79-332.

#### Elaine Campo *v.*Department of Employment Security.

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*David B. Green, Warren D. Weinstein, Rhode Island Legal Services, Inc.,*for petitioner. *Gary R. Pannone,*Special Legal Counsel, Board of Review, for respondent.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
#### KUGELMAN et al. v. RITTER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Sales (§§ 359, 441*)—Action fob Price—Defense—Counterclaim.

Where, in an action for the price of goods sold, one of the defendants, called by plaintiff, testified to a sale, delivery, and agreed price, a partial payment, and the balance due, his testimony, on cross-examination, that plaintiff knew that the goods were purchased for manufacture into cloaks, and had said that they would make up into nice goods, that a large quan*141tity of the goods proved to he so defective as to show that they were not suitable, and that plaintiff had suggested that the goods, when the dispute as to quality arose, should be sent to an examiner for inspection, and that he would abide by his decision, and that only a small quantity from three pieces was sent to the examiner, who found them defective, did not establish a defense or counterclaim.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see gales, Cent. Dig. §§ 511, 1056-1059, 1277-1283; Dec. Dig. §§ 359, 441.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Julius G. Kugelman and another against William C. Ritter and another. From a judgment of dismissal at the close of plaintiffs’ case, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Samuel J. Rawak, of New York City, for appellants.

Joseph Gans, of New York City, for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PAGE, J.

The action was to recover the agreed price for goods -sold and delivered. The plaintiffs called one of the defendants as their witness, and proved by him the sale, delivery, and agreed price, and payment for all but the balance alleged to be due. The defendants’ attorney on cross-examination went into the defense, and proved that the plaintiffs knew-that the goods were purchased to be manufactured into cloaks, and said that they would make up into nice goods, and that -a large quantity proved to be so defective as to show that the goods were not suitable for the purpose for which they had been purchased. It also appeared that the plaintiffs’ assignor had suggested that the .goods, when the dispute as to quality arose, should be sent to an examiner for inspection, and plaintiffs’ assignor agreed to abide by his decision. The defendants, however, sent only a small quantity from three pieces of the goods in controversy, and the examiner held these to be defective. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, “on the .ground that it appears on the plaintiffs’ case that goods exceeding the amount of plaintiffs’ claim were sent to the examiner of the plaintiffs’ assignor and reported not good delivery/’ The motion was granted. The defendants had not, however, on the cross-examination established their defense. It may well be that further testimony may be adduced which might be sufficient to prove a defense or a counterclaim, but it was error to dismiss the complaint.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Brampton
Crest International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month
period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brad Hacker, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/ Brad Hacker
    ------------------------------------
    Brad Hacker
    Chief Financial Officer

    May 11, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  November 30, 2007 (the "Report") by
Futura Pictures, Inc. ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.




January 10, 2008                         By:   /S/ BUDDY YOUNG
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Buddy Young
                                               Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                               Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.7
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT Amendment Company Subsidiary Borrowers Subsidiary Borrower Borrowers Borrower Lender Lenders Wachovia Administrative Agent Agent
 W I T N E S S E T H
 WHEREAS, Credit Agreement
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 
 Certain Definitions
 Amended Credit Agreement
 Third Amendment Date Subpart 3.1
 Other Definitions
 
 Section 8.3
 
 Third Amendment Date Third Amendment Date Part 3 Third Amendment
 Execution of Counterparts of Amendment




---



##### 



Other
 
 Representations and Warranties
 Cross-References
 Instrument Pursuant to Credit Agreement
 References in Other Credit Documents Subpart 3.1
 Counterparts/Telecopy
 Governing Law
 Successors and Assigns
 Continuing Agreements
 2




---



##### 



Payment of Fees and Expenses
 Approval by Lenders
  3




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 BORROWERS:
    
    COLEMAN CABLE, INC.,a Delaware corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFOOSWEGO WIRE INCORPORATED.,a Texas corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFOCCI ENTERPRISES, INC.,a Delaware corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFO
 4
  THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



AGENT AND LENDERS
    
    WACHOVIA BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Administrative Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Maura S. AtwaterName:
    
    Maura S. AtwaterTitle:
    
    Vice President
 THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



NATIONAL CITY BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.,as Syndication Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Glenn P. BartleyName:
    
    Glenn P. BartleyTitle:
    
    Director
 THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



ING CAPITAL LLC,as Syndication Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Bennett C. WhitehurstName:
    
    Bennett C. WhitehurstTitle:
    
    Vice President
 THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Documentation Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Sherry WinickName:
    
    Sherry WinickTitle:
    
    Vice President
 THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



ASSOCIATED BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as Documentation Agent and as a LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Joseph J. GehrkeName:
    
    Joseph J. GehrkeTitle:
    
    Vice President
 THIRD AMENDMENT




---



##### 



CONSENT OF GUARANTORS
 Guarantors Guarantor
  GUARANTORS:
    
    BARON WIRE & CABLE CORP.,an Illinois corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFOTHE DEKALB WORKS COMPANY,an Illinois corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFOCCI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,a Delaware corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFOLAKESIDE DRIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,a Delaware corporationBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Richard N. Burger

Richard N. BurgerTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President/CFO
 THIRD AMENDMENT
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NOE RODRIGUEZ

- AVILA

, §

No. 08

- 14

- 00 267

- CV

Appellant, §

Appeal from the

v. §

County Court at Law No. 3

§

PATRICIA SILIS,

Appellee. §

§ of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2013

- DCV4560 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(1) because Appellant no longer desires to prosecute the appeal . We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal . Costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellant. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 (d).

October 29, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge, sitting by assignment)(Not Participating)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2319 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2319

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2013

     Mr. Mullin (for himself, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
   Faleomavaega, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New 
    Mexico, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cole, and Mr. Pearce) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.

    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 ``Native American Veterans' Memorial 
Amendments Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS' MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authority To Establish Memorial.--Section 3 of the Native 
American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 
note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``within the interior 
        structure of the facility'' and inserting ``on the property''; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``, in consultation 
        with the Museum, is'' and inserting ``and the National Museum 
        of the American Indian are''.
    (b) Payment of Expenses.--Section 4(a) of the Native American 
Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 note; 108 
Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and National Museum of 
        the American Indian'' after ``American Indians''; and
            (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall be solely'' 
        and inserting ``and the National Museum of the American Indian 
        shall be''.
                                 <all>
```