alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.5

               SCHEDULE OF 2005 SALARY AND TARGET BONUS FOR NAMED
       EXECUTIVE OFFICERS (AS DEFINED IN ITEM 402(A)(3) OF REGULATION S-K)

Effective May 1, 2005, the annual salary compensation for each of the Named
Executive Officers is:

         Robert J. Keegan, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
         President, $1,100,000;

         Jonathan D. Rich, President, North American Tire, $445,200;

         C. Thomas Harvie, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary,
         $446,100;

         Richard J. Kramer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
         Officer, $461,100; and

         Michael J. Roney, President, European Union Tire, $418,100.

Target bonuses for 2005 under the Company's Performance Recognition Plan for
each of the Named Executive Officers are:

         Mr. Keegan,  $1,500,000;

         Mr. Rich, $385,000;

         Mr. Harvie, $290,000;

         Mr. Kramer, $330,000; and

         Mr. Roney $361,000.

         Payment of 2005 bonuses will be made from a payment pool, the size of
which will depend on the extent to which the specific financial performance
targets established by the Committee are met. The target aggregate payment pool
for 2005 is $27.8 million. Earnings before interest and taxes less finance
charges ("EBIT") and operating cash flow are the financial performance measures
under the Performance Recognition Plan for fiscal year 2005. Funding of the 2005
payment pool will be based 50% on each performance measure and could range from
zero to 200% of the target amount depending on the level of operating cash flow
and EBIT achieved. In addition, payouts for each of the Named Executive Officers
may be adjusted based on individual performance.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.488 Guaranteed industrial development bond issues.

(a) Loans to public bodies will be guaranteed only in connection with the issuance of any class or series of industrial development bonds (as defined in section 103(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (IRC)), the interest on which is included in gross income under IRC. No part of the loan guaranteed by Rural Development may extend to any class or series of industrial development bonds the interest on which is excludable from gross income under section 103(a)(1) of such Code. Before the execution of any Loan Note Guarantee, the lender will furnish Rural Development evidence regarding interest on bonds being taxable for Federal income tax purposes. Such evidence may be in the form of an unqualified opinion of a recognized bond counsel or a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service. Guaranteed loans to public bodies can only be used for constructing and equipping industrial plants for lease to private businesses engaged in industrial manufacturing and does not provide funds for debt refinancing, working capital and other miscellaneous fees, charges or services. The lessee will have to provide necessary capital and sufficient financial strength to provide for a sound project.

(b) If Rural Development and the applicant agree that a guaranteed lender is not available, the application may be considered for an insured loan under the provisions of § 1980.481 of this subpart.

## Administrative

The lender is responsible for notifying the Rural Development of the taxability of the proposed bond issue.
Exhibit 10.5(d)


 


SITEL
Corporation


TERMINATION
OF EXECUTIVE WEALTH ACCUMULATION PLAN


 


SITEL Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereby
terminates the SITEL Corporation Executive Wealth Accumulation Plan (the “Plan”),
effective as of January 1, 2005. All Participants in the Plan shall be
paid the balance in their Deferred Benefit Accounts in accordance with the
following payment schedule:  Balances to
be paid in a single installment on or before June 30, 2005.


 


Capitalized terms used in this document shall have the
same meaning as set forth in the Plan.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this document is executed on
behalf of SITEL Corporation this 1st day of January, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
  SITEL
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James F.
  Lynch

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  James F. Lynch,
  CEO
§ 249.26 SFMNP information. ( a ) Any person who wishes information, assistance, records or other public material must request such information from the State agency, or from the FNS Regional Office serving the appropriate State as listed below: ( 1 ) Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Northeast Region, 10 Causeway Street, Room 501, Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1066.
( 2 ) Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Virgin Islands, West Virginia: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Mid-Atlantic Region, Mercer Corporate Park, 300 Corporate Boulevard, Robbinsville, New Jersey, 08691-1598.
( 3 ) Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Southeast Region, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Room 8T36, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
( 4 ) Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Midwest Region, 77 West Jackson Boulevard—20th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507.
( 5 ) Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Southwest Region, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 555, Dallas, Texas 75242.
( 6 ) Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Mountain Plains Region, 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 903, Denver, Colorado 80204.
( 7 ) Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS, Western Region, 550 Kearny Street, Room 400, San Francisco, California 94108.
( b ) Inquiries pertaining to the SFMNP administered by a federally recognized Indian tribal organization (ITO) should be addressed to the FNS Regional Office responsible for the geographic State in which that ITO is located.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.15    
    


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

KEY EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT  


        WHEREAS, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") and James Nash ("the Executive") have entered into
the Key Employee Agreement dated as of August 16, 2004 (the "Agreement"); and, 


        WHEREAS, the Supply Chain organization of the Company has recently been renamed "Technical Operations" in order to more clearly identify
its function and mission both within and outside of the Company; and, 


        WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the foregoing change. 


        NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 


        The
first sentence of Section 1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read: 



        1.    EMPLOYMENT BY THE COMPANY.    Subject to terms set forth herein, the Company agrees to employ Executive in the
position of Executive Vice President, Technical Operations, and Executive hereby accepts employment effective as of the Effective Date. 




        Except
as specifically amended by this Amendment No. 1, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment No. 1 effective as of December 13, 2004. 



	WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	EXECUTIVE
	

By:	
/s/  SUSAN K. SKARA      
 Susan K. Skara

Sr. Vice President, Human Resources

Date: December 16, 2004	
 	
/s/  JAMES NASH      
 Name: James Nash

Date: December 14, 2004













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.15
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50442

Conference Calendar

__________________

DAVID GLENN BRAY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BREWER, Mr.; L. STEELE,

DENNIS WALKER, Sheriff,

LIMESTONE COUNTY COURT COMMISSIONERS;

JACK CRUMP; D. CORDOVA, Captain;

ALFREDO, Lt.; B. KENT, Sgt.; CRONK,

Officer,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of

USDC No. W-95-CV-153

- - - - - - - - - -

August 24, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Glenn Bray has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) in this court. To proceed pro se and IFP on

appeal, Bray must show that he is a pauper and must raise a

nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th
No. 95-50442

-2-

Cir. 1982). "The inquiry is limited to whether the appeal

involves `legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore

not frivolous).'" Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983).

Bray does not raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. An

order denying an application to proceed IFP is immediately

appealable and is properly before this court. See Flowers v.

Turbine Support Division, 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975). 

The denial of IFP status is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

Id. at 1243-44. Whether a party may proceed IFP in the district

court is based solely upon economic criteria. Watson v. Ault,

525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976). Poverty sufficient to qualify

does not require absolute destitution. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de

Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The central question is

whether the movant can afford the costs without undue hardship or

deprivation of the necessities of life. Id. at 339-40.

The district court determined that Bray had sufficient funds

to pay the $120 it cost to file his complaint. Given Bray's

attestations that he had $21.37 in his prison trust account, that

in the last six months he had received deposits in excess of

$370, and that he receives about $120 a month in deposits, he

could afford the filing fee without undue hardship or deprivation

of the necessities of life. Accordingly, the district court did

not abuse its discretion when it denied Bray motion to proceed

IFP. As such, Bray fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue on

appeal. His motion to proceed IFP in this court is DENIED, and

his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 95-50442

-3-
#### The State ex rel. Watson, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.; Harts Stores, Inc., Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Watson v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 145.]

(No. 96-2325

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Lonas & McGonegal*and *Terrance J. McGonegal,*for appellee.

*Gibson & Robbins-Penniman, Corrine S.*Carman.and *Gus Robbins-Penniman,*for appellant.

*146The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would reverse the court of appeals and affirm the Industrial Commission’s order.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
##### 



AMENDMENT ONE TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGENTED CREDIT AGREEMENT
 ORCHIDS PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANY BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A. BANCFIRST COMMERCE BANK, N.A. BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A.
 RECITALS
   AGREEMENT
  Amendments to the Credit Agreement
  EBITDA
 Conditions Precedent




---



##### 



Borrower Ratification
 Governing Law and Binding Effect
 Costs, Expenses and Fees
 Multiple Counterparts
 Further Assurances
 [Signature Pages to Follow]




---



##### 



BorrowerORCHIDS PAPER PRODUCTS COMPANYBy
    
    /s/ Keith R. SchroederKeith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



BanksBANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., as a Bank and AgentBy
    
    /s/ Dan HughesDan Hughes, Senior Vice President




---



##### 



BANCFIRSTBy
    
    /s/ Elisabeth F. BlueElisabeth F. Blue, Executive Vice President




---



##### 



COMMERCE BANK, N.A.By
    
    /s/ Dennis R. BlockDennis R. Block, Senior Vice President
NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

November 22, 1996

Mr. Dan Rattiner
Dan's Papers
2221 Montauk Highway
Bridgehampton, NY 11932

Dear Dan,

As per our discussions,  I write this letter to confirm our agreement  regarding
the   "Rattiner   Option,"  as   described   in   paragraph   12A  of  the  News
Communications/Dan's  Papers  shareholders  agreement  dated  October  13,  1988
(Agreement).

News Communications, Inc., for a one year period, waives the requirements stated
in 12A(b) of the Agreement.

It is expressly  intended  that,  for the period from  November 22, 1996 through
November 21, 1997,  you will have the right to exercise  your option  granted in
12A(a) of the agreement  without  regard to meeting the profit  requirements  in
12A(b) of the agreement.

All of the other provisions of the agreement,  including  paragraph 13 (Purchase
Price;Payment), remain unchanged.

This letter and its provisions are void after November 21, 1997.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael Schenkler
---------------------
Michael Schenkler
President

cc:  Jerry Finkelstein
     Wilbur Ross
     Robert Berkowitz

                                       33

<PAGE>
#### KING, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

June 27, 1906.)

Action _by Henry T. King against the state of New YorkT

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**AnnualCertification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersignedofficers of CKX, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

Theannual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained inthe Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 1, 2007 | /s/ THOMAS P. BENSON                                                                           |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Thomas P. Benson                                                                               |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President  And Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to CKX, Inc. and will be retained byCKX, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
§ 210.13 Facilities management. ( a ) *Health standards.* The school food authority shall ensure that food storage, preparation and service is in accordance with the sanitation and health standards established under State and local law and regulations.
( b ) *Food safety inspections.* Schools shall obtain a minimum of two food safety inspections during each school year conducted by a State or local governmental agency responsible for food safety inspections. They shall post in a publicly visible location a report of the most recent inspection conducted, and provide a copy of the inspection report to a member of the public upon request. Sites participating in more than one child nutrition program shall only be required to obtain two food safety inspections per school year if the nutrition programs offered use the same facilities for the production and service of meals.
( c ) *Food safety program.* The school food authority must develop a written food safety program that covers any facility or part of a facility where food is stored, prepared, or served. The food safety program must meet the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and the requirements in § 210.15(b)(5). ( 1 ) A school food authority with a food safety program based on traditional hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) principles must: ( i ) Perform a hazard analysis;
( ii ) Decide on critical control points;
( iii ) Determine the critical limits;
( iv ) Establish procedures to monitor critical control points;
( v ) Establish corrective actions;
( vi ) Establish verification procedures; and
( vii ) Establish a recordkeeping system.
( 2 ) A school food authority with a food safety program based on the process approach to HACCP must ensure that its program includes: ( i ) Standard operating procedures to provide a food safety foundation;
( ii ) Menu items grouped according to process categories;
( iii ) Critical control points and critical limits;
( iv ) Monitoring procedures;
( v ) Corrective action procedures;
( vi ) Recordkeeping procedures; and
( vii ) Periodic program review and revision.
( d ) *Storage.* The school food authority shall ensure that the necessary facilities for storage, preparation and service of food are maintained. Facilities for the handling, storage, and distribution of purchased and donated foods shall be such as to properly safeguard against theft, spoilage and other loss.
[54 FR 29147, Aug. 2, 1988, as amended at 64 FR 50740, Sept. 20, 1999; 70 FR 34630, June 15, 2005; 74 FR 66216, Dec. 15, 2009; 78 FR 13448, Feb. 28, 2013]
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Sound Advice, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 of Sound Advice, Inc. of our report dated April 23, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Sound Advice, Inc. and subsidiary (the "Company")
as of January 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cah flows for the year ended
January 31, 1999, the seven-month period ended January 31, 1998 report on Form
10-K of Sound Advice, Inc. and subsidiary.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Fort Lauderdale, Florida
April 30, 1999
#### § 29.6088 Rule 2.

The determination of grade shall be based upon a representative sample or a thorough examination of a packing of tobacco.
98-1536.

#### State v. Hoskins.

Franklin App. No. 97APA10-1384. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2)(B). See *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
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 Chardan North China Acquisition
      Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007
      (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Li Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.







By:
      /s/
      Li Zhang  Dated:
      May 21, 2007


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


Li
      Zhang


Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Marvin Bernard Ross Case No: 3:99cr113-003/LAC

USM No: 04761-017

Date of Previous Judgment: 4 May 2005

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 412 months is reduced to 348 months* .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 40 Amended Offense Level: 36

Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III

Previous Guideline Range: 360 to Life Amended Guideline Range: 235 to 293 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence as to Counts 1 and 2 is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Term of imprisonment of 264 months as to Counts 1 and 2, said terms to run concurrently, one with the other. 

The previously imposed 84 month consecutive sentence for Count 3 remains in effect resulting in a total sentence of 348

months.

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated 4 May 2005 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: s/L.A. Collier 30 April 2008

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Lacey A. Collier, Senior U.S. District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:99-cr-00113-LC-MD Document 98 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32



In connection with the quarterly report of Holloman Energy Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant Petersen, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 results of operation of the company.



|                     |  |  |                                           | 
|-------------------- |  |  | ----------------------------------------- | 
|Date:  May 13,  2009 |  |  | /s/ Grant Petersen                        | 
|                     |  |  | Grant Petersen,                           | 
|                     |  |  | Principal Executive and Financial Officer |